The Copenhagen Accord
Take Action
Post Copenhagen Petition to President Obama
Sign Now
The Copenhagen Accord: Faulty Process, Lack of Substance
The impacts of climate change -- floods, droughts, and natural disasters -- threaten food security, livelihoods, and the very right to survival for millions of the world’s poorest people. Over the last few years, over 190 countries have been working together through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to draft a global climate agreement intended to stop global warming and help poor countries adapt to its current and future impacts.
This process of negotiation was intended to conclude at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP 15) held in Copenhagen in December 2009. ActionAid has been actively participating in the UNFCCC negotiations and advocating for a just and effective outcome in Copenhagen. But although the Copenhagen climate conference has now come and gone, our work is far from over because our key demands have not been met.
Read on for a description of ActionAid’s key demands for a just outcome at Copenhagen, a brief analysis of the “Copenhagen Accord” (the most tangible outcome from the conference) and accounts of developing countries’ reactions to the Accord. Because ActionAid’s fight for climate justice is far from over, please sign our petition to demand climate justice now.
ActionAid’s Demands for an Equitable Copenhagen outcome
ActionAid brought a diverse delegation to Copenhagen from countries including Bangladesh, Tanzania, Vietnam, Kenya, India, Brussels, Britain and the US. We worked directly with decision makers and urged them to draft a climate agreement which included:
- An aggregate mitigation target for all developed countries to ensure that global temperatures do not rise more than 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels (the threshold beyond which catastrophic damages to the poorest nations will likely occur);
- Mitigation targets for individual “Annex 1” countries (those whose emissions of greenhouse gases have been greatest over time) to be based on their historic responsibility for causing climate change;
- Public finance for climate adaptation totaling at least $100 billion per year by 2020, to be provided in grants and in addition to Official Development Assistance (ODA) targets;
- Public finance for climate mitigation (emissions reductions and related measures) totaling at least $100 billion per year by 2020, also in addition to ODA targets;
- The establishment of a global climate fund to operate under the authority of the UNFCCC’s Conference of Parties;
- Provisions to ensure that most vulnerable communities, particularly women, have decision-making power with respect to how adaptation funding is governed, used, monitored, and evaluated; and
- A strong compliance mechanism to ensure that Parties fulfill their finance and mitigation commitments.
The Copenhagen Accord
Developed and developing countries remained divided on key aspects of mitigation, financing, and adaptation even in the final days of Copenhagen. Still, countries from both the North and South agreed that they were making progress towards an agreement. Because of this progress, many developing countries were particularly distressed by the appearance of the “Copenhagen Accord,” which was presented by a small group of countries – led by the United States – on the last night of the conference.
On December 18th, the last day of the two week conference, President Obama reached Copenhagen. Intent on striking a deal, the President met with key developing countries -- China, India, Brazil, and South Africa – and drafted the text of the Copenhagen Accord. The text was then shared with roughly 25 countries (out of the 192 countries present at the Conference) and, at close to midnight on the last day of the negotiations, the U.S. held a press conference to say that a deal had been struck. Many developing countries had not even seen or heard of the Copenhagen Accord, but instead learned about it from the press conference.
The substance of the Copenhagen Accord is frighteningly hollow. With respect to mitigation, the Accord recognizes the need to keep the Earth’s temperature from warming two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, but includes absolutely no assurance that this goal will be reached. Instead, the Accord states that global and national emissions should peak “as soon as possible” and leaves it up to each developed country to pledge whatever mitigation target it decides. With this voluntary system, it is almost certain that global temperatures will increase far beyond 2 degrees and that some island states and coastal regions will disappear, threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions of people.
The Accord includes few references to adaptation and no reference to the need to prioritize the most vulnerable communities or women. Additionally, the Copenhagen Accord links adaptation to “response measures” – financial support to oil-producing economies which will be negatively impacted by the transition to renewable energy. The language of the Accord states that “adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures is a challenge faced by all countries,” suggesting that scarce financial resources for adaptation may go to oil-producing nations instead of to poor developing countries.
The financing commitments in the Copenhagen Accord are also weak. The Accord includes a goal for developed countries to collectively commit resources “approaching” $30 billion between 2010 and 2012 (with “balanced” allocation between adaptation and mitigation). It also includes a goal for developed countries to jointly mobilize $100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. It is important to note the various deficiencies with this $100 billion figure. First, it is only a “goal,” not a commitment. Second, it is a combination of public and private finance. ActionAid believes that the majority of climate finance must come from the public sector. This is particularly important for adaptation, where the private sector will have minimal interest or impact in serving the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable communities.
The $100 billion figure is also simply too small to adequately address both adaptation and mitigation, and may not be additional to existing ODA. ActionAid believes strongly that climate finance must be new money, rather than recycled aid funds previously committed in other forms. Finally, the $100 billion is conditional, and will only be mobilized “in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation” by developing countries. ActionAid finds this type of conditionality unacceptable – funding for adaptation and mitigation is a legal obligation of developed countries, and must not be dependent on what developing countries do or don’t do.
Reactions to the Copenhagen Accord
When the Copenhagen Accord was finally presented to all Parties and discussed in plenary at 3:00 am on Saturday morning, some countries opposed the text not only because it lacked substance, but also because of the non-transparent process by which it was produced by a small, self-selected group. "We're offended by the methodology. This has been done in the dark," stated a delegate from Bolivia. "It does not respect two years of work."
Venezuela proclaimed that it will “never accept any document coming from an unclear and nontransparent process that was held without having a mandate and which violates all the principles of the United Nations.”
And Lulumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, a Sudanese diplomat who represents the G77 (a group of 132 developing countries), stated that the Copenhagen Accord “threatens the lives and the livelihoods of millions of people in developing countries and the existence of the African continent and her people.” Lulumba added that even a two degree rise in temperature is “certain death” for Africa. Sudan and other developing countries had been calling for developed countries to take on targets which would ensure that the Earth’s temperature not rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Because there was no consensus on the Copenhagen Accord, the UNFCCC Conference of Parties was only able to “take note of,” rather than adopt the document. Countries have until the end of January to sign-up to the Copenhagen Accord. It was also decided that countries would continue to negotiate the texts that had been under discussion through the 16th Conference of Parties, to be held in Mexico City in December 2010. It is still unclear, however, what the Copenhagen Accord will mean for UNFCCC negotiations going forward.
The Way Forward
The Copenhagen conference represents a defining moment, when the demands of the climate justice movement were blatantly ignored and the rights of poor communities were disregarded. Copenhagen made absolutely clear that we cannot just continue to fight for climate justice– we must fight harder, stronger, and smarter. ActionAid will continue to engage with governments, in the US and beyond, and with our supporters to help achieve a just and effective climate deal that protects the rights of the world’s poor. Please join us in our efforts, and sign our petition for climate justice here.
