12Smith School of Enterprise and the EnvironmentSmith The Cancun Agreement, by incorporating many of the key points of the Accord into the official UNFCCC process, has clarified this. The Cancun Agreement does more than just incorporate the key ideas of the Accord however; it also elaborates them and makes them operational. The two and a half pages have been upped to thirty. The Cancun Agreement integrates and elaborates on all of the main parts of the Copenhagen Accord, including:Agreed Limit to Temperature Increase - Shared VisionThe 2°C limit to temperature rise was recognised and the scientific reasoning for this. The Cancun Agreement also agrees that deep cuts in emissions are necessary to achieve this. Room was left for a change in this limit of 2 ?C to a lower limit of 1.5 ?C as part of a review of the Agreement's implementation to be completed by 2015. This is in a large part in deference to the Maldives and other small island states which had pushed for a 1.5 ?C limit on global temperature change. MitigationThe Copenhagen Accord established a bottom-up pledge-and-review process that allowed each country, both developed and developing, to define its own mitigation actions, including developed country emissions targets. These targets and actions were to be submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat for compilation. 76 countries, including all Annex I and 39 non-Annex I countries, submitted targets or actions to the Secretariat. These countries together represented 85 per cent of global emissions. These submissions were included in the Cancun Agreement via their inclusion in two information documents; one for developed country targets and one for developing country actions. Whilst this does not make them legally binding it does integrate them into the UNFCCC process.A registry for developing countries to list nationally NAMAs for which international support is sought, proposed in the Copenhagen Accord, was set up by the Cancun Agreement. These supported NAMAs will then be subject to international consultation and analysis (ICA).FinanceIn the Copenhagen Accord it was established that developed countries would collectively commit to providing new and additional resources approaching US$30 billion in 'fast start' money for the 2010-12 period, to be balanced between adaptation and mitigation for least developed nations. This amount is set to increase towards US$100 billion per year by 2020. This has been incorporated into the Cancun Agreement. In addition, the Accord also called for the creation of a Green Climate Fund through which a significant part of the finance would be transferred, and a High Level Panel to identify potential sources of revenue to meet the US$100 billion per year target [3]. These calls were answered in Cancun. As established in the Cancun Agreement, the fund will be managed by a board of 24 members, split between developed and developing countries, and will be administered for the first three years by the World Bank. The Cancun Agreement also notes the pledges of adaptation and mitigation finance pledged to the Copenhagen Accord. At the time of writing, this amounts to a total of US$27.9 billion.Forestry At the Cancun negotiations progress was made on forest carbon. Building on statements made in the Copenhagen Accord, a framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation as well as halting and reversing forest loss (REDD+) was established. The Cancun Agreement provides countries with guidance on REDD+ readiness and recognises and sets out a phased approach for implementation. There are still several key questions left for clarification in further negotiations; definitions and reference emission levels need to be clarified in addition to questions regarding finance. AdaptationThe Cancun Agreement set forth detailed provisions on adaptation in the Cancun Adaptation Framework and creates an associated Adaptation Committee, taking further the declarations in the Copenhagen Accord which recognised the need for adaptation to both the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures. The Agreement also establishes a Technology Mechanism to facilitate technology development and Chapter 3Chapter

EnvironmentSmith School of Enterprise and the Environment13transfer. This Technology Mechanism is made up of two parts, one of which is operational immediately; the Technology Executive Committee. The second part, the Climate Technology Centre and Network, requires further negotiations before work can begin.Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV)The Cancun Agreement built upon previous MRV guidelines and established a new standard for transparency; all major economies are to report on progress in meeting their national climate targets and actions on a more frequent basis. National communications and inventories will now be produced at least every four years by all large emitters in addition to biennial update reports on their GHG emissions. In addition developed countries are to enhance their reporting of any support given to developing countries. Developing countries' reporting on their mitigation actions was also strengthened with supported national actions being subject to ICA. This ICA process for the supported NAMAs will be conducted by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation.Legal FormThe Cancun Agreement, like the Copenhagen Accord, does not cover the issue of the legal form of the post-2012 climate regime. It postpones decisions on this issue to next year at COP17 in South Africa.Implications of the NegotiationsThe most notable aspect of the negotiations in Copenhagen and, to an even larger extent, in Cancun is the fact that at last all of the major emitting nations have begun to seriously engage in the climate challenge. This is an essential and highly positive result. The adoption of the 2 ?C target shows that attention is being paid to the science of climate change. In addition the poorest nations of the world are making their presence felt to a larger extent. For example, the African nations protested by walking out en masse when they feared the Kyoto treaty was about to be abandoned at Copenhagen. In addition, the small-island states, notably the Maldives and Tuvalu, are increasingly vocal [9]. This is clear from the inclusion of 1.5 ?C as a possible limit to temperature rise in the Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreements. The changing world power dynamic has been more apparent in the negotiations in recent years. Reflecting its emergence as a global power, China is much more assertive. In addition, India took on a much more constructive role in this year's negotiations at Cancun. Fractures within the developing country negotiating bloc (the G77) were more apparent [3]. Other developing countries are putting increasing pressure upon China to accept limits on its emissions. The Copenhagen Accord and Cancun Agreement mark the first occasion that the rapidly emerging economies and the US have put forward mitigation actions and have accepted any type of internationalisation of their climate change policies. In addition, it is the first time that the emerging economy countries, such as the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, China and India), agreed to any international consultation or analysis concerning their emissions reduction actions. India was particularly progressive on this issue at the Cancun negotiations. These developments are very positive in terms of breaking down the 'firewall' between developed and developing countries and in recognising the changing global power structure.With regard to the funding pledged by developed countries for adaptation and mitigation measures in developing countries, the fast start sum of $30bn for the period from 2010 to 2012 is similar to what had been promised by the EU and the US earlier in the negotiations. The more important figure of $100bn per year by 2020 promised to developing countries is more in question. This money is to 'come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance'. While this amount is in line with estimates of the type of sums that are required [10] it is unclear how this money is to be raised. Experience from the past makes it clear that it is not politically feasible to transfer such large sums of taxpayers' money to the developing world. It is even more unlikely at present with developed countries 3Chapter 3Chapter 3: Copenhagen and Cancun