FEATURE: Copenhagen Accord: First step towards future climate treaty

By Lennart Simonsson Nov 24, 2010, 13:05 GMT

Copenhagen/Stockholm ­ The absence of many world leaders might prove a blessing in disguise for the outcome of the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Cancun, Mexico.

In comparison, the UN conference held in Copenhagen in December 2009 was attended by more than 100 heads of state and government.

The many leaders assembled - including global heavy-weights like US President Barack Obama and Chinese premier Wen Jiabao - had been envisioned to sign a far-reaching political deal at the end of the summit.

But delegates left the Danish capital with the so-called Copenhagen Accord, a compromise deal brokered mainly by the United States and China ­ the leading carbon emitters - on the last day of the conference.

The accord saw governments spell out their national plans for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. But even supporters conceded it was insufficient to slow global warming, since it contained no improved targets for rich nations and did not commit anyone to legally binding cuts.

Backers said the accord was a first step and noted that it mentioned calls by scientists about the need to limit global warming to within 2 degrees centigrade against pre-industrial levels. A UN- led study released Tuesday found that the emissions pledges in the accord got the world about 60 per cent of the way to that temperature goal.

Insiders like the former UN climate chief Yvo de Boer have since questioned the presence of the world leaders at Copenhagen.

'Their early arrival did not have the catalytic effect that was hoped for. The process became paralysed. Rumour and intrigue took over,' de Boer said in an email quoted by Danish author Per Meilstrup in a book published earlier this year about the failed talks.

And even before the doors of the Bella Centre venue conference opened, it had been evident the Copenhagen summit would not produce a legally binding treaty, even though there were hopes for a far- reaching political declaration.

The accord did not pin down specific emissions cuts by industrialized countries, nor did it spell out how a promise of 30 billion dollars in pledges to help poor countries threatened by the ravage of climate change in 2010-2012 would be paid for.

'It is not what everyone has hoped for,' UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told journalists at the conclusion of COP 15, as the Copenhagen summit was known.

Pressure group Greenpeace described the outcome as a 'huge missed opportunity' due to the lack of a legally binding agreement.

Procedural wrangling and numerous interventions also delayed proceedings in Copenhagen ­ reflecting the difficulties of negotiations involving more than 190 countries.

Meilstrup's book - 'Kampen om klimaet: Historien om et topmode, der lob lobsk' (The Struggle for the Climate: The story of a summit that spun out of control) - highlighted a split between the Danish prime minister's office and the Danish climate ministry.

The Danish hosts have also been given part of the blame for the failed outcome, partly over the fallout from a leaked draft document.

During the conference, Chinese diplomats openly accused the Danes of leaving key players out of the drafting process, while European diplomats said that the Danes were throwing the talks into jeopardy by not bringing out a text fast enough.

'This is a multiparty-driven process. You can't just put forward some text pulled from the sky,' China's chief negotiator, Su Wei, said at the time.

The Danish draft was presented to only a few countries, including the US, China and Russia. It was obtained and published by the British newspaper The Guardian, angering other countries.

'[The Danish text] destroyed two years of effort in one fell swoop,' de Boer wrote in the email to colleagues after the talks. 'All our attempts to prevent the paper happening failed. The meeting at which it was presented was unannounced and the paper unbalanced.'

In Cancun, it is hoped that the full UN membership will sign onto the Copenhagen Accord. The United States and others have promised a more transparent process.