2016年-PIIE彼得森国际经济研究所_After_the_Flop_in_Copenhagen_11页_313kb

Copenhagen Climate Summit Summary

Introduction

The 2009 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Copenhagen was widely regarded as a failure. Despite high expectations and the participation of over 100 world leaders, the conference did not produce a comprehensive, legally binding climate treaty. Instead, a non-binding political document known as the Copenhagen Accord was endorsed. The Accord lacked specificity and robust commitments, leading to criticism from many nations and observers. The UNFCCC operates by consensus, and the Accord was not formally approved but rather accepted as a "take note" document. The failure of Copenhagen highlighted the deep divisions between developed and developing countries, particularly over the legal framework and the distribution of responsibilities.

Key Issues and Outcomes

1. Legal Framework and Equivalence of Obligations

• The Copenhagen Accord was seen as a non-binding political agreement rather than a treaty.
• There was a lack of equivalence in obligations between major developed and developing countries.
• The Kyoto Protocol was not fully retained, and the Bali Action Plan was not fully implemented.
• The "common but differentiated responsibilities" principle, which underpins the Kyoto Protocol, was not uniformly applied, especially to major developing countries.

2. Emission Targets and Climate Goals

• The Accord agreed to a 2°C global temperature cap above preindustrial levels, a goal previously discussed in the G-8 Summit and the Major Economies Forum.
• It did not set binding, collective emission reduction targets for all countries.
• Developed countries were asked to submit quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020, while developing countries were encouraged to make voluntary pledges.
• The Accord failed to meet the IPCC-recommended targets of 25–40% reduction in developed countries by 2020 and 50–80% reduction globally by 2050.

3. Financial Support and Climate Fund

• Developed countries pledged $30 billion for 2010–2012 to support developing countries' mitigation and adaptation efforts.
• They also committed to $100 billion annually by 2020, but the Accord did not specify how this funding would be sourced or allocated.
• The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund was proposed, but the details of its operation and funding sources remained unclear.
• Developing countries demanded a climate fund equivalent to 0.5–1% of developed nations' GDP, which is far higher than the $30 billion commitment.

4. Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV)

• The Accord called for MRV standards, but only for countries receiving international support.
• Developed countries wanted independent MRV for all emissions reductions, while developing countries, especially China and India, resisted such measures.
• A compromise was reached: developing countries would be subject to international consultation and analysis of their mitigation actions, not full MRV.
• This created a tricky issue regarding border measures and how they can be implemented effectively.

5. REDD and Forest Activities

• The Accord recognized the importance of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation).
• It called for the establishment of a mechanism to provide financial incentives for REDD activities, including REDD-plus.
• The Kyoto Protocol had excluded REDD from its offset mechanisms, but the Accord acknowledged its mitigation potential.
• Strong MRV standards and capacity building in developing countries are essential for the success of any REDD mechanism.

6. Technology Transfer

• The Accord proposed a technology mechanism to promote innovation and transfer of climate technologies.
• Technology transfer is seen as crucial for developing countries to implement their own mitigation strategies.
• Developed countries emphasized the need for financial incentives to encourage technological innovation that reduces GHG emissions.

Conclusion

The Copenhagen Accord represented a small step toward a global climate agreement, but it fell short of expectations. It lacked binding commitments, specific targets, and transparent financial mechanisms. The failure to achieve consensus on the legal framework and the lack of equivalence in obligations between major emitters underscored the challenges in international climate negotiations. The Accord set the stage for future negotiations, but without significant structural changes, the path to a meaningful and effective climate treaty remains uncertain.