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

14Smith School of Enterprise and the EnvironmentSmith feeling impoverished due to the recession. At the present time sovereign debt in some developed countries has returned to the post Second World War level of around 120 per cent of GDP, which makes a cash flow of this magnitude very unlikely. A much higher level of public engagement with the issue of climate change and a greater awareness of the risks posed will be needed for governments to be able to commit to such amounts [11]. Analysis of Current National Targets and ActionsAnalyses by UNEP and the WRI, among others, have suggested that the pledges made to the Copenhagen Accord, now adopted under the UNFCCC process, together are - conditional on various assumptions - probably not sufficient to ensure that the global mean temperature does not rise above the 2 ?C limit established in the Agreement. At present it has been estimated that the current pledges equate to a greater than 50 per cent chance that warming will exceed 3 °C by 2100 [12]. The Annex I pledges together will, if implemented, result in a reduction in emissions from developed countries by 2020 of 12-19 per cent below 1990 levels. This falls short of the range of emissions reductions (25 to 40 per cent) that the IPCC states would be necessary to keep within the 2 ?C temperature increase range [13]. Japan and Norway are the only two developed countries to make sufficient pledges: of 25 per cent and 30-40 per cent below 1990, respectively. The EU has pledged deeper cuts, of 30 per cent, should other nations sign up to a global deal. The US has pledged to reduce emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020. This equates to around 3 per cent below 1990 levels - less ambitious than the reductions of the Kyoto Protocol. Canada, by aligning itself with the US, is the only country to weaken its ambitions by increasing its emissions allowances relative to those it agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol.The Copenhagen Accord marked the first time that some developing countries volunteered to undertake emissions actions. Indonesia was the first non-Annex I country to pledge its commitments. Indonesia has pledged emissions cuts of 26 per cent from current levels by 2020 increasing to 41 per cent with assistance. China and India have pledged emission intensity reductions of 40-45 per cent and 20-25 per cent relative to 2005 by 2020, respectively. These pledges from the group of rapidly emerging economies emphasize the need to differentiate this group from the poorer developing nations.On the positive side these pledges represent a very significant shift beyond both the business-as-usual scenario and the original protocol position. They mark a significant step forward. What these analyses point out is that these commitments on emissions reductions will over the coming years need to be ratcheted up to meet the 2 ?C rise limitation. It is relevant to recall that the Montreal Protocol of 1987, requiring countries to reduce CFC emissions to manage the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere, was quantitatively insufficient for the intended purpose. Subsequently the CFC emissions reduction programme was very substantially improved, and the ozone reduction problem has been managed. As new low CO2, energy efficient economically viable processes and technologies are developed and dispersed, and the economic risks attached to climate change become more apparent, there is good reason to believe that the same will happen with CO2 emissions.Assessment of Key PledgesAs the submissions made were decided upon at a national level by individual countries it is likely that the targets put forward are realistic and will be met. However, it could be useful to assess how ambitious or feasible the emissions-reductions targets are. Here the submissions of the major three emitters are assessed; the US, the EU and China.ChinaAs the largest emitter of CO2 in the world, China's actions towards climate change are particularly important. China has pledged to reduce its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP ('emissions intensity') by 40 to 45 per cent by 2020 compared to 2005. This target ensures that emissions are limited without constraining economic growth. When examining China's past emissions it is found Chapter 3Chapter