{"id":219224,"date":"2009-12-20T14:47:32","date_gmt":"2009-12-20T19:47:32","guid":{"rendered":"11461 at http:\/\/www.wri.org"},"modified":"2009-12-20T14:47:32","modified_gmt":"2009-12-20T19:47:32","slug":"taking-note-of-the-copenhagen-accord-what-it-means","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/219224","title":{"rendered":"“Taking Note” of the Copenhagen Accord: What It Means"},"content":{"rendered":"

Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As the dust settles after a decidedly unconventional climate convention, delegates and experts are turning their attention to the outcome, and what it means for the future of international climate change efforts. Previous COPs typically end with a series of \u201cdecisions\u201d that are accepted by unanimous consensus of the delegates (majority vote does not apply to the climate convention), which sets a high hurdle for what can be accomplished.<\/p>\n

But this time, history didn\u2019t play out in exactly the same way. Here are some early thoughts on what actually happened at COP-15 in Copenhagen, and what it means from a legal perspective:<\/p>\n

Is the Copenhagen Accord a binding document?<\/h4>\n

Not in a legal sense. In fact, the words \u201clegally binding\u201d were conspicuously removed from earlier drafts of the Accord by delegations that aren\u2019t yet ready to enter into a legally binding instrument. But the Accord is \u201cpolitically binding\u201d on those countries that choose to sign up to it. A number of delegations publically expressed their approval of it during the final Conference of Parties (COP) plenary session. And the Convention Secretariat is setting up a process for governments to associate themselves with the Accord, and the names of their countries will be formally listed alongside the text.<\/p>\n

But \u201cpolitically binding\u201d is not the same as \u201clegally binding.\u201d Politically binding\u2014if anything\u2014means that political consequences will flow from its breach\u2014diplomatic responses, efforts at public shaming, withholding of discretionary funding, etc. In this sense, the Accord can be considered a strong, high level commitment by the countries that have adhered to it, and many groups are choosing to interpret it in this sense.<\/p>\n

But didn\u2019t the COP \u201cadopt\u201d the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15?<\/h4>\n

No. The COP \u201ctook note\u201d of the Copenhagen Accord. Decisions by the COP require a consensus (if any Party present formally objects to a decision, it can block its adoption). That level of consensus was not possible in this case, and the COP rules don\u2019t enable voting. While the 25 or so countries that were asked by the COP President to participate in a high level meeting of the \u201cfriends of the President\u201d eventually accepted the Accord, at least four Parties spoke out against it (Tuvalu, Sudan, Bolivia, and Venezuela). In any event, COP decisions\u2014even those agreed to by all parties\u2014cannot by themselves legally bind Parties.<\/p>\n

What does it mean for the UNFCCC to \u201ctake note\u201d of the Copenhagen Accord?<\/h4>\n

\u201cTaking note\u201d of the Accord is a way for UNFCCC parties to formally acknowledge its existence. To quote UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer<\/a>, it \u201cis a way of recognizing that something is there, but not going so far as to associate yourself with it.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, the decision to \u201ctake note\u201d of the Copenhagen Accord does not change the nature of the Agreement; it does not, for example, give it the significance of a COP decision. However, it may give it greater significance than documents that parties submit during COP proceedings, such as those categorized as \u201cmiscellaneous\u201d or \u201cinformational\u201d (MISC or INF) documents.<\/p>\n

During the Plenary, a number of governments in support of the Accord called upon the COP, under Art 7.2(c) of the Convention to:<\/p>\n

Facilitate, at the request of two or more Parties, the coordination of measures adopted by them to address climate change and its effects, taking into account the differing circumstances, responsibilities and capabilities of the Parties and their respective commitments under the Convention.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This should give the COP a mandate to follow up on the implementation of the Accord.<\/p>\n

I thought I heard officials say the Copenhagen Accord be made \u201cimmediately operational.\u201d How is that possible?<\/h4>\n

The Accord describes itself as \u201cimmediately operational.\u201d Participating countries can, however, only immediately operationalize those parts of the Accord that do not require a COP decision.<\/p>\n

For example, the Accord provides that governments will submit more specific country-level commitments and actions in the Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 sections of the Accord. Appendix 1 is intended for \u201ceconomy-wide emissions targets\u201d for 2020 for Annex-I countries; Appendix 2 for \u201cmitigation actions\u201d by non-Annex I countries. These commitments, which must be submitted by January 31st, 2010, will constitute more specific and significant commitments on the part of the submitting countries. These commitments can become operational immediately.<\/p>\n

However, the Accord also \u201cdecides\u201d to establish a new \u201cCopenhagen Green Climate Fund\u201d to manage the billions of dollars pledged in Copenhagen. It provides that the Fund will be part of the Convention\u2019s Financial Mechanism. This isn\u2019t possible without a COP decision. Unless the all Parties can agree, at the next COP or later, money raised under the Accord will have to be managed outside the Convention.<\/p>\n

A plausible argument could be made that since the Accord was adopted as a package, even those aspects of the Accord that would otherwise be immediately operational (such as the 31 Jan 10 deadline) won\u2019t take effect until the other aspects, such as the establishment of the fund, also take effect.<\/p>\n

\n<\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a> <\/img><\/a>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here is a Q&A on some of the most important legal questions surrounding the Copenhagen Accord. As the dust settles after a decidedly unconventional climate convention, delegates and experts are turning their attention to the outcome, and what it means for the future of international climate change efforts. Previous COPs typically end with a series […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4288,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219224","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219224","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4288"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219224"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219224\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219224"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219224"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219224"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}