Copenhagen Accord

Copenhagen Accord updates

The Cook Islands have submitted a letter to the UNFCCC setting out their decision not to associate with the Accord and the reasons behind its position. 

105 countries associated with the Copenhagen Accord (12/3/10): Around 105 countries have now indicated that they support the Copenhagen Accord and/or want to be associated with it. A detailed list has been prepared by the South Centre and US Climate Action Network are also continually updating a table of party statements on the Accord.

March: Project Catalyst have produced a clear and simple analysis of the emissions reduction pledges put forward since the creation of the Copenhagen Accord available here: http://www.project-catalyst.info/images/publications/project_catalyst_taking_stock_february22_2010.pdf. The report usefully sets out the size of the gap between current pledges and a 450ppm stabilization pathway, and hypothesises on the impact both of failure of cap-and-trade legislation in the US, and the possibility that pledges from Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 parties may overlap if the latter are double-counted as offsets for the former.

March: The US has submitted their ideas on the work agenda for the UNFCCC talks this year, strongly foregrounding the Copenhagen Accord and expressing their desire for agreements under the Accord to be formalised in Mexico at COP16. See their submission here: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/application/pdf/usawp2010_lca.pdf. The move is a provocative one, given the indications that many of the major developing countries have given that continuation of the formal negotiating tracks is crucial to their engagement in further agreements. It is certainly being received with some suspicion by Indian media (http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article124564.ece). In its submission, the US reflects on the LCA draft texts that, “their contents do not reflect specific agreements or understandings in the negotiating process.” This is a tone shared by Japan, where informal talks took place this week attended by 30 countries. The Japanese Ambassador for Global Environmental Affairs opened the talks with the exhortation that countries “really have to be serious about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the negotiation and decision-making process” and the Foreign Minister stated that the Accord can be the basis for a “fair, effective and comprehensive framework” (see here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9E5LIK00&show_article=1). Informal gatherings and multilateral talks are likely to be a feature of this year’s climate work on the international scene, while parties try to navigate their way through the pitfalls of process towards progress.

Update (11/2/10): The UNFCCC has received submissions of pledges to reduce or limit greenhouse gas emissions from 55 countries, representing 78% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to their press release. The communications from Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 parties to the Secretariat are now available aggregated on the UNFCCC website.The UNFCCC does not, however, expressly state that these communications come under the Copenhagen Accord, an omission that optimists might interpret as evidence that the Accord has stimulated activity internationally without replacing the UN formal working groups and pessimists might read as a continuation of the confusion and misunderstanding that is bound to blow up into disagreement next time the parties meet. Climate Action Tracker has released its analysis of the pledges made so far, and the results are here: http://www.climateactiontracker.org. They estimate that the current pledges put the world on a path to around 3.5 degrees temperature rise above pre-industrial levels (again, pessimists and optimists will differ in their response to this news). The analysis shows that an unconditional target of 5% cuts from 2000 levels by 2020 is inadequate for Australia. 

Update (2/2/10): The deadline for joining the first list of countries that will be “associated” with the Accord (and will be listed by the UNFCCC in a chapeau attached to it) was 31st January, but countries will be able to continue indicating their association with it after that date. The UNFCCC has now aggregated the communications they have received from parties wanting to be associated with the Copenhagen Accord. According to the UNFCCC's list, there are thirty parties associated, ten (incl. the EU) from Annex 1 and twenty from non Annex I. The A1 pledges are listed in a table as QELROs and the non-A1 aggregates the communications received.

Climate Action Tracker has released analysis of the pledges put forward by countries in association with the Copenhagen Accord, with a country specific page on Australia.

Notes:

- Note that although the UNFCCC has included China and India's pledges under the heading of Copenhagen Accord pledges, those two parties did not mention the Accord in their communications. China, for example, reiterates its 40-45% emissions intensity target, "for the information of parties" and stresses that "the above-mentioned autonomous domestic mitigation actions are voluntary in nature and will be implemented in accordance with the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC, in particular Article 4, paragraph 7."
- Note also that Canada has weakened its target since last year -- aligning with the US target of 17% cut from 2005, which for Canada is a 2.5% increase from 1990 levels by 2020 and that the Maldives have pledged a 100% cut by 2020.

BASIC statement on the Copenhagen Accord

The four big developing countries colloquially known as the BASIC group (for Brazil, South Africa, India and China) had their second Ministerial level meeting on climate change in Delhi in late Janurary, and released a statement about their plans for the Copenhagen Accord. The text of the BASIC statement is available from The Hindu newspaper (http://www.hindu.com/nic/2010draft.htm) The statement calls for the Danish COP Presidency to convene meetings of the two AWGs in March this year, and for five intersessionals in the lead up to COP16 in Mexico. The next meeting will be in South Africa in late April. 

About the Copenhagen Accord

The formal outcome is that the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC decided to take note of the 'Copenhagen Accord' of the 18th December 2009. Attached to this decision will be the accord itself and the title to the accord. The list of those agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord shall be listed in the title.

The Copenhagen Accord was not adopted by delegates to the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen.  Instead, delegates merely ‘noted’ the agreement's existence, giving it no force whatsoever.

• The Copenhagen Accord is noted in the COP decision. It is outside the COP/UNFCCC and not part of the COP decision. It is a sign-on document (ie countries who support it will be listed).

• The Copenhagen Accord is not a formal agreement within the UNFCCC framework and thus it is not clear how it will be implemented.

• Many countries called for the Copenhagen Accord to be acknowledged, as the only agreement that can be reached here at Copenhagen, and that countries/parties should re-convene to ensure that a full agreement on climate change is reached in 2010.

• There is reference to two degree temperature limit, commiting the parties to reducing global emissions so as to hold the increase in global

  temperature below two degrees Celsius.

  • There is also reference to 1.5 degree limits, in ambiguous phrasing. There will be an assessment of the Accord implemented by 2015, including

  “consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature

  rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

  • The agreement includes a goal of Annex 1 parties mobilising jointly US$100 billion a year by 2020 for developing countries and short-term financing “approaching” US$30 billion for 2010-2012.

  • It is agreed that a significant proportion of this money would flow through the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.”

  • There is also agreement to establish a Technology Mechanism, without detail of how this would work.

  • Annex 1 parties will commit to quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 to be submitted to the UN by 31st January.

  • Mitigation actions by developing countries will be “subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification” to be submitted with national communications every two years.

  • There are also provisions on REDD, adaptation and market mechanisms.

• The texts that were generated through the LCA and KP will be included in the reports of the COP and CMP and used as starting inputs for the negotiations in 2010.

Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord:

• Climate Action Network International (of which CANA is a part) considers that:

1. The job is not done, yet.

2. The Copenhagen Accord is not ambitious, it is not fair and it is not binding.

3. This agreement has huge loopholes and gaps.  The goals for reducing pollution keep us on a path that science says leads to catastrophic warming.

4. The financing in this deal to help developing countries confront a crisis not of their making amounts to less than the subsidies nations serve up to the fossil fuel industry.

5. It is essential that countries work to finalise a strong agreement in the next 6 months. Countries should meet as many times as is needed over these 6 months to ensure that there is not another failure to get a deal that gets the job done.

6. In the mean time, we are faced with a very costly delay, with costs measured in human lives, and in dollars.

7. We are confronted with dangerous delay that means millions of families run the risks of unnecessary tragedy.  The impacts of this delay will be felt in every country, and will fall particularly hard on poor people in developing country.

8. The longer the delay the higher the costs will mount, and the fewer opportunities we will have to invest in solutions that drive economic growth.

9. It also means delaying the investments in clean energy that can drive our global economy, bringing jobs and prosperity to millions in every country.  We risk locking in growth on the dirty energy path.

10. Longer we wait the worse it gets: the International Energy Agency tells us that every year of delay costs $500 billion dollars.

11. This delay benefits only the narrow interests of big oil and the fossil fuel industry.  All of the rest of us are losers.  

12. The science is clear, we have the means, all we are missing is the will.

13. We need to commit to cutting pollution as the science tells us.  We need to invest in clean energy growth.  And we need to provide the help developing  countries deserve to confront a crisis not of their making.

• Climate Scientists underwhelmed: Top climate scientists said Saturday that the eleventh-hour political deal hammered out at UN talks in Copenhagen falls perilously short of what is needed to stave off catastrophic global warming