Conference of Parties 'Takes Note Of' Copenhagen Accord

Reporting from Copenhagen

“Takes note of: That is a way of recognizing what is there without going so far as to directly associate yourself with it.”

That's how UN climate chief Yvo de Boer described the fate of the Copenhagen Accord this morning. World leaders had hammered out what they thought was an international climate change agreement, only to watch the Sudanese speaker for the G77, Lumumba Di-Aping, shred it in 20 minutes during a midnight press conference.

With unanimous approval of the accord out of the question, officials came up with this solution: The Conference of Parties "took note" of the Copenhagen Accord but did not formally adopt it.

How the non-binding Copenhagen Accord will function from here, particularly its financial mechanisms, is unclear, legal experts say. While recognized, it exists outside of all previous agreements, and only those countries that explicitly associate with the accord are bound to it in any way.

In news conferences today, De Boer and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon did their utmost to remix and spin the accord's importance.

De Boer almost made it sound like the cool new social media network:

“There is an opportunity from now on for countries to sign up to that agreement, to make it known that they want to join it, to put their targets and emissions goals on the table, to say what they are willing to contribute financially, to indicate that they want to be part of the technology mechanism, in a way, it’s a vehicle that’s been created that people will have the opportunity to join.”

Ban tried to spin it like this:

“All countries have agreed to work toward a common long-term goal to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius, many governments have made important commitments to reduce or limit emissions, countries have achieved significant progress to conserve forests, comprehensive support for most vulnerable on climate change the deal is backed by money and the means to deliver it.

"We have the emergence of transparency and a global governance structure that will meet the needs of developing countries.”

Lawyer Tim Baines with the Norton Rose Group, LLP, reiterating a concern of British climate change secretary Ed Miliband during the wee hours of the morning, explained:

“The legal basis for the adoption of the accord is not as certain as would have been adopted by way of a COP decision ... therefore it’s going to require a little bit more thought.”

The financial mechanism, in particular, is unclear, Baines said. Because the accord wasn't adopted by consensus, by which all parties would have been bound, it now isn’t certain which body the now-voluntary agreement falls under.

One suggestion about how to fit the accord into the larger UNFCCC body is to use the convention's Article 7.2 (c). That article of the convention requires the secretariat to implement provisions under the language of “facilitation at request of 2 or more parties, the coordination of measures perceived to bind them to address climate change and their effects taking into account the different responsibilities of the parties.” The accord would become such a measure for facilitation under this analysis, Baines said.

Robert Orr, the UN’s deputy secretary for policy and planning, described the financial mechanism in particular as “maintaining the momentum” of the Conference of Parties talks and giving the “potential for immediate cash.”