Lima talks reached a questionable deal on climate, after two weeks of negotiations organized by the United Nations finally seemed to produce some results. The outcome of the annual climate summit is seen by most as acceptable, though not everybody was satisfied. The unsettled issue will be furthers discussed at the climate conference in Paris to be held in December 2015.
Over one hundred ninety countries and organizations were hosted in Lima, Peru to barter a new deal on climate change set to be signed in Paris next year and be enforced starting 2020. This was the twentieth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP20) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The new world climate treaty will make all the states accept set targets for dropping greenhouse gas emissions. This agreement is expected to enable countries to dodge the bullet of the fatal warming-induced climate change effects such as sea-level increases, floods, storms or droughts. But states also have to approve the next short-term actions required to cope with inescapable effects of global climate change.
Initially COP20a was supposed to make the agreement public on Friday afternoon but, enduring gaps between rich and poor nations made the haggles last until the early hours of Sunday morning.
Apparently two main problems prolonged the discussions.
The first was whether rich and poor countries should bare the commitments in different ways or should all submit to the Principles of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), under a 2015 deal.
The second was exactly what type of financial and non-financial commitments should the agreement contain, also known as the nationally determined contributions (INDCs).
Developed countries pushed for an emphasis on gas emissions’ control while developing countries were not so happy about incorporating funding guarantees as assistance to underdeveloped countries to manage climate change effects.
As the talks kept on going endlessly most representatives gave in and started compromising so they could finally reach an agreement. Their endeavor was pretty challenging as they had to come up with a deal based on a downsized draft that had been altered quite a few times.
This morning, delegates were prudently confident that a deal would emerge later, but countries most exposed to the effects of climate change were not really satisfied with the declarations.
Basically, this Lima deal only paves the ground for a real agreement in Paris. It provides states with a wide range of choices and allows each state to hand in its own intentions for reducing global warming in the first semester of 2015.
The agreement settled on applying the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. Perhaps the most appreciated development the talk brought is that all everybody agreed on the necessity of a long term endeavor to scale back emissions. Over 100 countries currently back up a long alleviation end, delivering a strong message that low-carbon economy is unavoidable.
Critics aforementioned that the restructured text offered a “a load of clarity” on what countries ought to place in their national plans.
The text of the deal also mirrors the issues at the talks. For example, though the principle of common but differentiated responsibility is quite on top of the document the loss and damage principle has also found its way in.