2015年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_The_Copenhagen_Accord_6页_159kb

The Copenhagen Accord Summary

Core Content

The Copenhagen Accord (COP 15, 2009) was a significant but controversial outcome of the global climate change negotiations. Initially intended to finalize a new international agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol, the Accord instead emerged as a political compromise that avoided legally binding commitments. It introduced a new framework based on voluntary national pledges, financing mechanisms, and adaptation efforts, but failed to establish a clear roadmap for achieving global climate targets.

The document was not formally adopted by the COP but was instead taken "note of", leaving its legal status ambiguous. Despite this, it represented a shift in the approach to climate governance, moving away from the top-down targets of Kyoto towards a bottom-up pledge-and-review system.

Main Results

• Financing Commitments:
  Developed countries committed to mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 from public and private sources.
  A $30 billion fund was also established for the period 2010–2012, with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation, prioritizing the most vulnerable developing countries.

• Deforestation and Forest Degradation:
  The Accord explicitly acknowledges the need to address deforestation and establishes a mechanism to mobilize resources for this purpose.

• Adaptation Focus:
  Action and cooperation on adaptation were given urgent attention, particularly for least developed countries, small island developing states, and Africa.

• Scientific Recognition:
  The Accord recognizes the scientific case for limiting global temperature rise to 2°C, but lacks a credible pathway to achieve this goal.

• Domestic Pledges:
  Countries are asked to submit domestic pledges by the end of January 2010, which are to be measured, reported, and verified.
  The Copenhagen Accord does not include binding emissions targets or a firm deadline for international agreements.

• No Formal Adoption:
  The COP itself did not adopt the Accord, which remains uncertain in its future role in climate negotiations.

Key Perspectives

• EU vs. US:
  The EU expected a comprehensive and operational agreement with binding emissions targets and finance contributions.
  In contrast, the US focused more on architectural changes and international cooperation, reflecting different political priorities.

• Climate Change as a Constraint on Growth:
  Developing countries view climate mitigation as a constraint on economic growth, especially due to coal restrictions.
  Industrialized nations argue for the benefits of a green growth model, emphasizing sustainability and future competitiveness.

• Carbon Debt and Historical Responsibility:
  Some developing countries argue that developed nations must first pay back historical carbon debts.
  The Accord does not recognize historical responsibility, despite referencing the UNFCCC.

• Adaptation as a Priority:
  For many developing countries, adaptation is the primary concern, as they face the most severe climate impacts with limited adaptive capacity.

Architectural Changes

• Voluntary Pledges Over Binding Targets:
  The Accord shifts from Kyoto-style top-down targets to unilateral pledges, allowing countries to set their own emissions reduction goals.
  This model is similar to the portfolio approach proposed by the Harvard Project.

• Inequitable Carbon Budgets:
  The current grandfathering system, based on percentage reductions from current emissions, benefits countries already occupying carbon space.
  Developed countries have already contributed 75% of cumulative CO₂ emissions up to 2000, and over 50% since then.
  Emerging economies may consume the remaining carbon budget, potentially curbing the growth of low-income countries.

• Emissions Pathway:
  Based on current pledges, the global temperature could rise by 3.2°C by 2100, significantly exceeding the 2°C target.
  This would have major impacts on vulnerable countries and future generations.

EU's Options and Strategic Reassessment

• Declarative Success:
  The EU could declare Copenhagen a success, as did Chancellor Merkel, but this risks undermining its leadership role.

• Lisbon Treaty Opportunity:
  The Lisbon Treaty provides a framework for the EU to increase its influence in future negotiations, though negative media coverage may prompt a reevaluation of its role.

• Strategic Choice: US or Independent Path?
  The EU faces a decision: maintain its close alignment with the US or develop its own distinct position.
  This could position the EU as a bridge between developed and developing countries, given its emphasis on historical responsibility and finance.

• Global Carbon Pricing:
  The EU could lead in establishing a global carbon price through either:

  • Scaled-up post-2012 mechanisms, requiring international cooperation.
  • Border carbon adjustments, such as an import tax on CO₂ content of goods, to enforce carbon pricing globally.

Conclusion

The Copenhagen Accord marks a departure from binding international climate agreements, signaling a new era of voluntary commitments and asymmetric responsibilities. While it includes important progress in financing, deforestation, and adaptation, it fails to address the core issue of emissions reductions effectively. The EU's role in future negotiations remains uncertain, and it may need to rethink its strategy to maintain leadership in the climate change arena. The Accord's long-term impact will depend on the implementation of pledges and the evolution of the global climate governance framework.