08 Apr Cancun Agreements
Cancun`s decision also establishes an “international assessment of emissions and absorptions related to macroeconomic targets for reducing quantified emissions” for Schedule I parties. This should be “rigorous, robust and transparent in order to promote comparability and build trust.” The text focuses on land use, land use change and forestry (UTCATF) and emissions credits from market-based mechanisms, which are key issues, taking into account international experience, namely the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements. As the WRI analysis shows, it is essential to pay particular attention to the implementation of a transparent and effective system. The decision also provides a mandate for industrialized countries to develop low-carbon development strategies or plans. (Kelly Levin) The New York Times called the agreement both a “big step forward” as international negotiations have stumbled in recent years, and “quite modest” because it did not require the changes that scientists deem necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.  John Vidal, who wrote in the Guardian, criticized the Cancun agreements for not playing a leadership role, for not specifying how the proposed climate fund would be funded, and that countries had to “get by” within ten years and reduce them quickly so that there was a chance of avoiding warming. The postponement of decisions on the legal form and the level of emissions reductions was also criticised.  Professor Kevin Anderson called the Cancun agreement “astrology” and explained that science suggested an increase in the global average temperature of 4 degrees Celsius, possibly in the 2060s.  The agreement calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, as promised in the Copenhagen agreement, and developing countries to reduce their emissions. Agrees that the rules and objectives should be finalized as soon as possible to avoid any gaps between the first and second commitment periods of the protocol. It was an attempt to stop the pressure on the conclusion of the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in South Africa next year.
In addition, the Secretariat is invited to develop a technical document to facilitate a better understanding of the assumptions underlying the objectives, the achievement of the objectives and the comparison of related emission reduction efforts. (See WRI`s analysis of the importance of these clarifications). The summit resulted in an agreement adopted by the state parties, which called for the creation of a large “Green Climate Fund” and a “climate technology centre” and a network. He expects a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol. The framework identifies a wide range of priority policy areas, while the Committee will identify gaps, focus on best practices and make recommendations on unrealized needs. Innovations in the framework include attention to migration, disaster risk reduction and institution building. Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol will therefore continue with a clear emphasis on the conclusion of the above issues, with the continued link with the other negotiating channels described below. While in the media, overall expectations for meetings were lower, for delegates, the pressure to deliver was greater in Cancun than in Copenhagen. If there had been no progress, it would have meant a real suspension of the UNFCCC process that most governments wanted to avoid. This dynamic has probably increased their willingness to find solutions and compromise. The Mexican Presidency has also given way to differences of opinion, but it has not allowed one country (i.e.
Bolivia) to prevent the rest from moving forward. However, there have been gaps and problems that need to be resolved before the next round of climate talks in Durban, South Africa, in 2011.