A new global climate change deal which has met with reaction ranging from disappointment to anger has been recognised but not endorsed by delegates representing 193 countries at the United Nation Convention in Copenhagen.
The deal, brokered late last night between the leaders of five of the most powerful nations, was today described the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon as an “essential” first step but has been widely acknowledged as flawed and impartial.
Mr Ban emphasised that the agreement, which, for now, runs to only three pages of text must be made legally binding late next year. The Convention finished at about 11.30am.
The Convention decided to “take note” of the document, known as Copenhagen Accord, and not endorse it. Binding cuts on emissions have effectively been postponed until the next global convention, which takes place in Mexico at the end of 2010.
As the plenary session of the Convention got under way early this morning it quickly became evident that many poorer and developing countries were furious at the deal and were scathing of its vagueness, its lack of specific and binding commitments, and the way in which it had been produced by a small group of countries.
The loudest protests were made by Venezuela, Sudan, Papua New Guinea, and Tuvalu, the tiny Pacific island whose very existence is under threat form rising ocean levels.
The Sudanese negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping described the draft text as an invitation to “Africa to sign a suicide pact”.
The deal was brokered late last night between US President Barack Obama, the Chinese prime minister Wen Jiabao, South African president Jacob Zuma, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh, and the Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen.
The document commits nations to contain temperature rises to within 2 degrees Celsius. It outlines measures to provide, by 2020, up to $100 billion a year to finance poorer countries in tackling climate change. It also contains a mechanism for verification of emission reductions.
This method would help solve the row between the US and China over transparency, that threatened to undermine the entire process.
In a press conference late last night, before he departed for the US, President Obama said it was a “meaningful agreement” but also accepted the process would require more work and confidence-building.
But defending the deal, he said to have let the opportunity slip would have led to “frustration and cynicism”.
The deal was also strongly defended by British prime minister Gordon Brown.
Taoiseach Brian Cowen, reacting to the deal last night, said it was far less ambitious than the one the European Union had sought. However, he said it was better than no deal.
“The fact that we don’t have legally-binding targets is a big disappointment and from our point of view we won’t hide the fact this isn’t as ambitious a deal as we would have liked coming into these negotiations.”
Minister for the Environment John Gormley sounded a similar note. “For me it’s personally disappointing. We have to go on. That is the only hope, that it’s still on track.”
Referring to the text that emerged from the five powerful countries, he said it was about nothing other than watering down the targets. “This is not a glorious success,” he said.
Robert Bailey, senior spokesman for Oxfam International, also expressed deep disappointment.
“It is shameful that after two years of blood, sweat and tears, governments didn’t finish the marathon on time.
“World leaders had a genuine chance here to deliver the fair, ambitious and binding deal the world needed… In the early hours of the morning any hopes of a legally binding deal were stripped out too.”