As they return from two weeks at the COP in Copenhagen, Reed Smith lawyers Lawrence Demase and Jennifer Smokelin reflect on what transpired and offer some advice regarding what to look for in the future:
The Copenhagen Accord, negotiated by only five countries and outside of the UN process, lays out the high-level agreements in principle of the largest emitters that are not party to the Kyoto Protocol: China, the United States, and India. The most significant outcome is the agreement with regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction by non-Kyoto parties, particularly China and the United States. With China's use of oil increasing at an incredible rate, even modest commitments (like a decrease in GHG intensity), could be a significant undertaking. The impact of the Copenhagen Accord may be felt more in the price of oil than in the reduction of emissions of GHG.
Specifically, the Copenhagen Accord offers a statement of purpose, which is to meet the “objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to stabilize GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”; that is, to keep global warming to 2°C. It offers $30 billion a year in financial support to poor countries with “balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation,” growing to $100 billion by 2020, as the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. The Accord includes key U.S. requirements such as international oversight of emissions reductions (transparency) for both Annex I and (more importantly) non-Annex I countries. The Accord also doesn’t address certain issues. Missing was hard-core MRV (monitoring, reporting and verification) for non-Annex I countries - the Accord only commits signatories to domestic MRV with “provisions for international consultation and analysis ... that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected” for non-Annex I countries. In other words, China will not open its books to verification by the West but will allow “clearly defined guidelines” for international consultation with regard to its domestic MRV. Missing also was any firm commitment to fund the promised $100 billion a year by 2020. A commitment (as requested by Africa and other vulnerable countries) for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5°C this century was not accepted. More of a surprise, missing was any 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80 percent - something that had been steadily included in discussion drafts up to that point. No overall targets for emission reduction for 2020 were specified, although individual parties are welcome to volunteer what they will reduce. Perhaps most tellingly, missing was any pledge to formalize the Accord as a binding treaty in Mexico City next year. In the end, it seems to be a short-term cash deal with a “to each his own” voluntary reduction pledge - but with non-Kyoto parties at the table.
Some countries criticized the side discussions that led to the Accord as a “back room” deal. In the language of the formal proceedings, the COP only “took note” of the presence of the Copenhagen Accord, and made it an attachment to the proceedings. Despite the informality of how it was developed, other countries were invited to join the Accord, and so far 27, including Australia and the European Union, have signed on with their own pledges. It is indeed a daunting task to try to get 193 countries to agree on anything, let alone something as complicated as addressing climate change, but Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed predicted Saturday that about 120 nations are already engaged in the overall international negotiation process and would sign up with reduction pledges before a 31 January 2010 deadline under the Accord to turn in pledges. If this “back room” approach proves successful, it raises questions as to whether the UN is the most effective forum to address international agreement on climate-change issues.
As we stated in the Day 1 post, the original goal of COP-15 had been an update to the Kyoto Protocol, and development of a Long-Term Cooperative Agreement, and in that it is a half-empty outcome. Negotiating the details of the two prime agreements still needs time, and many issues couldn’t be decided by party negotiators, but needed political decisions at the minister (or higher) level. But when the ministers arrived in Copenhagen, the gaps were too large and the time remaining too short to come to resolution. However, on the half-full side, there were originally four overriding issues that needed to be resolved: (1) How much will Annex I countries reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? (2) How much will major developing countries such as China and India limit the growth of their emissions? (3) What is financial aid offered by Annex I countries to developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change? (4) How is that money going to be managed? Looking at these four overriding issues, the Accord addresses but fails to completely resolve all of them. In that, COP-15 was a limited success. Clearly, there is still work to do this year and at the COP next year in Mexico City.