presentaion on the coppenhagen From December 7 environment ministers and officials met in Copenhagen for the United Nations climate conference to. In December , world leaders convened at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Accord, presented at the conclusion. The United Nations Climate Minister for the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen , During the first meeting of the contact group on 8 December.
The Copenhagen Conference marked the culmination of a two-year negotiating process to enhance international climate change cooperation under the Bali Roadmap, launched by COP 13 in December The conference was subject to unprecedented public and media attention, and more than 40, people, representing governments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, faith-based organizations, media and UN agencies applied for accreditation at the conference.
But it was not without controversy. Questions concerning transparency and process played out during the meeting. Many parties rejected this idea, urging that only texts developed in the AWGs by parties should be used. During the high-level segment, informal negotiations took place in a group consisting of major economies and representatives of regional groups.
Details of the agreement were widely reported by the media before the COP closing plenary. Parties also agreed to establish a procedure whereby countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord can accede to it. The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on 16 February and currently has parties. The focus was on long-term issues and the negotiations resulted in the adoption of the BAP, establishing the AWG-LCA with a mandate to focus on key elements of long-term cooperation identified during the Convention Dialogue, namely: The main objective of the session was to work towards negotiating text under both AWGs.
It agreed to continue discussions on these as well as on the other issues based on documentation prepared by the AWG-KP Chair. By the end of the June session, the Secretariat had also received five proposals for a new protocol under the Convention and twelve submissions concerning amendments to the Kyoto Protocol, proposed for adoption in Copenhagen.
The results were reflected in revised documentation prepared by the Chair for Bangkok. AWG-KP 9 did not conclude consideration of any of the issues in its work programme. He emphasized that Copenhagen would be successful only if it delivered significant and immediate action beginning the day the conference concludes. She called for a comprehensive agreement, delivering on all building blocks and launching immediate action. He emphasized the need for the Copenhagen agreed outcome to ensure full implementation of developed country party commitments under the Convention.
Algeria, for the African Group, expressed serious concerns with the lack of progress at previous meetings and reminded parties that Africans are already impacted by climate change through increased droughts, health hazards, food scarcity and migration.
He called for transparent and equitable negotiations during the high-level segment. She said a final agreement must address emission reductions by all major emitting countries and limit temperature increase to below 1. She indicated that any agreement should also provide for stable, predictable and adequate financing for adaptation, capacity building, technology and mitigation. Mexico, for the Environmental Integrity Group, supported a legally-binding outcome agreed by political leaders in Copenhagen and urged the conclusion of negotiations on both tracks ahead of the high-level segment.
She said all Umbrella Group members are prepared to propose individual reduction targets that will substantially reduce their emissions by , with their actions being subjected to robust monitoring, reporting and verification MRV. She suggested that the aim in Copenhagen was to forge a political vision that will guide global actions and lead to a new legally-binding treaty — the Copenhagen accord — as soon as possible.
Sweden, for the European Union EU , called for an inclusive Copenhagen agreement, encompassing non-Annex I parties, covering all building blocks based on the principles of the Convention. He said the agreement should be translated into a universal, legally-binding agreement in Copenhagen or by a specified time in He welcomed recent clarification on levels of ambition and urged parties to increase their pledges if possible.
Adoption of rules of procedure: He supported taking decisions by a majority of two-thirds of parties present and voting. COP President Hedegaard said she would consult on the issue.
He therefore proposed that the COP continue to apply the draft rules of procedure with the exception of draft rule Election of officers other than the COP President: On 7 December, the opening plenary addressed this issue. COP President Hedegaard noted that nominees were still needed for some positions. She said the COP would address this issue once nominations are complete, and that according to the draft rules of procedure being applied, the current bureau members would continue to serve.
On 18 December, parties elected officers other than the President. Andrej Kranjc Slovenia was elected as the Rapporteur. Dates and venues of future sessions: In its decision, the COP: Adoption of the report on credentials: The COP plenary did not convene until late evening pending informal consultations on how to proceed.
She explained that COP President Rasmussen is consulting with parties on how to proceed and that he would inform parties in the morning on the outcome of these consultations. Tuvalu requested clarity on the process moving forward and specifics on how consultations would be conducted. Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Egypt and Guatemala said they had yet to be contacted by the COP President for consultations and noted that they should be inclusive, transparent and include all major groups.
Also Bolivia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Argentina, Venezuela and Pakistan urged openness, transparency and inclusiveness in the consultations, lamenting the lack of transparency so far. Argentina said consultations must be carried out with all countries. Cuba highlighted the need for efficient use of time, noting that the COP plenary had been scheduled for 1: He noted that the main output is a set of conclusions presenting decision text to COP 15, emphasizing that the text does not prejudice the legal nature of the outcome to be adopted by the COP.
India requested textual changes to make the text more consistent with the Convention, changes to the sections on nationally appropriate mitigation actions NAMAs and on financial resources and investment. The Republic of Korea emphasized that some proposals had not yet been discussed in the contact group. Australia urged moving to outstanding issues, saying this should be done at the ministerial level. The COP plenary was suspended at Rasmussen said the contact groups should decide on the schedule and that he would not define a clear deadline.
He then closed the meeting of the COP. During the contact group meeting in the afternoon, contact group Chair Hedegaard proposed, and parties agreed, to establish open-ended drafting groups on:. On bunker fuels , Norway and Argentina inquired about addressing emissions from bunker fuels and Hedegaard explained that text would be available in the afternoon.
Saudi Arabia noted that this issue had not been captured as a supplementary decision to the core decision. He also asked how response measures would be addressed. Hedegaard confirmed that a facilitator was being sought for the group on response measures. She sought assurances that in the interest of transparency, no other processes would define or alter the outcome of the drafting groups. On sectoral approaches , Egypt noted long discussions on guiding principles and asked for the reinsertion of principles in the text.
Uruguay called for the establishment of a drafting group on sectoral approaches in the agriculture sector. On capacity building, South Africa stressed that this issue is important for developing countries and highlighted that it would be difficult to discuss capacity building for developed countries in text concerning developing countries.
The Russian Federation suggested that a compromise proposal should be sought to resolve the issue. Late in the evening on Thursday, 17 December, the COP contact group reconvened and the drafting group facilitators reported back on progress.
On adaptation , Co-Facilitator Kolly said that the drafting group had reached a better understanding of a Copenhagen adaptation framework or programme, as well as agreement on objectives and principles and some categories of action. Identifying issues to be addressed at a higher level, Kolly highlighted: On technology , Co-Facilitator Kumarsingh reported that parties had agreed on the establishment of a technology mechanism with a technology executive committee and a climate technology center.
Kumarsingh identified issues in need of ministerial intervention as: On a shared vision for long-term cooperative action , Facilitator Zammit Cutajar observed that views had been expressed on human rights, stakeholder participation and a just transition to a new form of production and consumption, which could be addressed through further discussion. He noted discussions on the concept of long-term goals on finance, technology and adaptation, in addition to the long-term global goal on emission reductions.
He also identified the need to resolve the issue of review, especially in terms of what is to be reviewed. On a possible NAMA registry or mechanism , Facilitator Mukahanana-Sangarwe said no agreement had been reached on the establishment of a NAMA registry or mechanism, the functions of such a registry or mechanism, and on whether the registry should be independent from, or part of, the financial mechanism.
She said divergent views remained on whether support for NAMAs should come only from developed countries or from both developed and developing countries and identified treatment of autonomous NAMAs as an issue in need of political resolution. Reporting on institutional arrangements for finance , Co-Facilitator Uosukainen said that the drafting group had addressed the issue of a climate fund or facility, and noted movement on the selection of a trustee for the fund or facility on an interim basis.
He said that divergent views remained on the composition and nomination of a finance board and its corresponding functions, explaining that these issues could benefit from political resolution.
He also noted that the group lacked time to address the remaining paragraphs on the establishment and functions of the proposed finance board. On various approaches to enhancing cost-effectiveness of mitigation actions, including markets , Facilitator Figueres Olsen highlighted two outstanding issues: In his report on mitigation , Facilitator Maquieira noted the complexity of the issue, highlighting fixed positions on many paragraphs.
He also informed parties of his intention to combine proposals. Venezuela, with Angola, for the African Group, drew attention to the option of not taking any decision on market approaches, while the US stressed the centrality of market approaches.
Late in the evening of 17 December, the COP contact group began discussing how to move forward. Sudan and Bolivia stressed the need for transparency and sought clarification on the establishment of a smaller group.
Sudan suggested continuation of discussions in drafting groups. South Africa, supported by Grenada, for AOSIS, suggested forwarding issues related to mitigation by developed countries, market approaches and finance to the political level.
Bangladesh, for the LDCs, said drafting groups could report back in the morning and issues could then be forwarded to the political level. New Zealand stressed the need to continue working through a smaller group with higher-level representation. Following brief consultations, contact group Chair Hedegaard recommended that the majority of drafting groups continue with their work, especially those that had reported that it would be meaningful to do so.
Venezuela reiterated that a non-inclusive approach was unacceptable because of divergent views within groups on certain issues. Most groups had not achieved much progress. However, progress was reported on cooperative sectoral approaches in the agricultural sector and technology transfer. Many groups stressed that further political guidance was necessary to achieve agreement.
COP President Hedegaard indicated that proposals relating to adoption of new protocols under the Convention had been received from five countries: The proponents then outlined their proposals. India, China, Saudi Arabia and others opposed a new protocol. China urged a focus on implementing the existing commitments under the Convention and Protocol and adopting an ambitious outcome under the Bali Roadmap and BAP.
COP President Hedegaard proposed establishing a contact group on this item. COP President Hedegaard indicated that in the absence of consensus on forming a contact group, she had no option but to consult informally.