page 1
page 2
page 3
page 4
page 5
page 6
page 7
page 8
page 9
page 10
page 11
page 12
page 13
page 14
page 15
page 16
page 17
page 18
page 19
page 20
page 21
page 22
page 23
page 24
page 25
page 26
page 27
page 28
page 29
page 30
page 31
page 32
page 33
page 34
page 35
page 36
page 37
page 38
page 39
page 40
page 41
page 42
page 43
page 44
page 45
page 46
page 47
page 48
page 49
page 50
page 51
page 52
page 53
page 54
page 55
page 56
page 57
page 58
page 59
page 60
page 61
page 62
page 63
page 64
page 65
page 66
page 67
page 68
page 69
page 70
page 71
page 72
page 73
page 74
page 75
page 76
page 77
page 78
page 79
page 80
page 81
page 82
page 83
page 84
page 85
page 86
page 87
page 88
page 89
page 90
page 91
page 92
page 93
page 94
page 95
page 96
page 97
page 98
page 99
page 100
page 101
page 102
page 103
page 104
page 105
page 106
page 107
page 108
page 109
page 110
page 111
page 112
page 113
page 114
page 115
page 116
page 117
page 118
page 119
page 120
page 121
page 122
page 123
page 124

" "COPENHAGENBROUGHT MANY ISSUES TO THE ADVANCED STAGEOF NEGOTIATIONS.AT THE SAME TIME,THE PROCESS HAS BEEN OVERLY FOCUSEDON POLITICAL ISSUES n Cancun, Mexico, the internationalcommunity will have another opportunityto unify around a set of achievablecollective actions that could boost greengrowth and climate resilience. The expectations and objectives for Mexico need to berealistic and take account of current political realities.This needs to focus on three key areas:1.Clarity on the future of the Kyoto Protocol;2. Clear leadership by Annex I Parties;3. Putting in place a fully operational architecture thatmakes it possible for developing countries to act onclimate change.Under the Convention, it is important to come to a common understanding of what an outcome inMexico can consist of. Possibly, a set of decisions inMexico could put in place the implementationarchitecture that will trigger accelerated action without further delay. For example, Copenhagen made progress on institutional arrangements to further operationalise the Financial Mechanism.Agreement was almost reached on the establishmentof a Finance Board of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention. This could be made operational by a decision.The Board would operate under the guidance of, andbe directly accountable to the COP. It would also haveequitable and balanced representation of all Parties.Negotiations under the Bali Road Map need to beconcluded in Mexico. Where applicable, the points ofconvergence in the Copenhagen Accord could beutilised for this purpose.Points of convergence in the Copenhagen Accordinclude the following: There was convergence on the long-term goal oflimiting temperature increases to no more than 2°Cabove pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015.But ways need to be found to make that a reality.Parties did not come to an agreement on how totranslate the long-term goal into the required emissionreductions, neither in global terms, nor for groups ofcountries. Firm commitments by developed countriesto continue taking the lead in emission reductions,including in the context of a 2°C Celsius limit, will beindispensable in the run-up to Mexico. The overalllevel of ambition needs to be raised and agreementreached on a second commitment period of the KyotoProtocol, coupled with appropriate arrangementsunder the Convention to capture commitments of non-Kyoto Parties.There seems to be convergence that the MRVframework for developed country targets would bebased on the existing reporting and accountingframework developed for the purposes of the KyotoProtocol. The MRV arrangements for developingcountries is a key policy issue on which theCopenhagen Accord could provide some guidance.Ways to reach the goal of mobilising US$100 billion by2020 pledged by developed countries remains a keyunresolved issue. Developed countries pledged up toUS$30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012, with a balanced allocation between adaptation andmitigation. It is essential that these funds start flowingimmediately. Given the amount of time needed tocreate and set up new funding channels, it will benecessary to channel short-term funds through existingRight: UNFCCC ExecutiveSecretary, Yvo de BoerTHE EXPECTATIONS AND OBJECTIVES FOR CANCUN114PRE-MEXICO REVIEWYVO DE BOER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORKCONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE (UNFCCC)IPhoto: UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz

PRE-MEXICO REVIEW115structures. This includes channels under theConvention, Protocol and bi-lateral or multilateralchannels.Yet overall, Parties need to know and plan for what theyare working towards. Many Parties have called for alegally binding instrument to be ready for adoption inCancun, while other Parties have made it clear they arenot ready for such a step. But "legally binding" meansdifferent things to different people. There is a need tounravel the concept and to define it clearly.One starting point for this may be to clearly assesswhich issues need a legal or regulatory foundation, andwhat that foundation might constitute. Anotherstarting point for this may be to turn the debate on"legally binding" into a debate on "compliance". Inthis way, issues that could be enforced by compliancearrangements could be identified. Such an approachwould lead to a more focused discussion on the needfor either a new legal instrument, or strong compliancearrangements attached to specific issues. In this way,consensus could be reached to turn the outcome inMexico into a legal treaty by a specific date.Copenhagen brought many issues to the advancedstage of negotiations. At the same time, the processhas been overly focused on political issues. In a way,negotiations would benefit from being depoliticised.More than ever, there is a need to focus on substantiveissues in order to make long-term climate changecooperation work. I am confident this can be done inview of a successful outcome in Mexico. nThe above remarks are extracted from an address byYvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, atthe 8th Informal Meeting on Further Action againstClimate Change in Tokyo, 1-2 March 2010.