The 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference was held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November to 10 December 2010.[1] The conference is officially referred to as the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 6th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP 6) to the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)– held their 33rd sessions. The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), and they met as well.
Background
Following the non-binding Copenhagen Accord put forth in 2009, international expectations for the COP16 conference were reduced.[2] Four preparatory rounds of negotiations (i.e. sessions of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA) were held during 2010. The first three of these were in Bonn, Germany, from 9 to 11 April, 1 to 11 June (in conjunction with the 32nd sessions of SBSTA and SBI), and 2 to 6 August. The Bonn talks were reported as ending in failure.[3][4][5] The fourth round of talks in Tianjin, China, made minimal progress and was marked by a clash between the US and China.[6][7][8]
Expectations
Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon addresses the hall
In August 2010, Ban Ki-moon stated that he doubted whether member states would reach a new global agreement to address global warming,[9] but after the Tianjin talks in October Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said, "This week has got us closer to a structured set of decisions that can be agreed in Cancun ... This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen." Other commentators spoke of a positive spirit of negotiation and of paving the way for agreement in Cancun.[10]
Tarawa Climate Change Conference
In the lead up to COP16, the leaders of the world's most climate-change vulnerable nations met in Kiribati to attend the Tarawa Climate Change Conference (TCCC) from 9 to 10 November 2010. The Ambo declaration was adopted at the Tarawa Climate Change Conference on the 10th November 2010 by Australia, Brazil, China, Cuba, Fiji, Japan, Kiribati, Maldives, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Solomon Islands and Tonga. The declaration calls for more and immediate action to be undertaken to address the causes and adverse impacts of climate change. The Ambo declaration, named after the village in Kiribati where parliament sits, was slated to be a non-legally-binding agreement between the nations to present at the larger international climate change summit, COP16.
Outcome
The outcome of the summit was an agreement, not a binding treaty, which aims to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels and calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions. The agreement includes a "Green Climate" fund, proposed to be worth $100 billion a year by 2020, to assist poorer countries finance emission reductions and adaptation.[11] There was no agreement on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, or how the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund will be raised, or whether developing countries should have binding emissions reductions or whether rich countries would have to reduce emissions first.[12]
The New York Times described the agreement as being both a "major step forward" given that international negotiations had stumbled in recent years, and as being "fairly modest" as it did not require the changes that scientists say are needed to avoid dangerous climate change.[13] John Vidal, writing in The Guardian, criticised the Cancun agreements for not providing leadership, for not specifying how the proposed climate fund will be financed, and for not stating that countries had to "peak" their emissions within 10 years and then rapidly reduce them for there to be any chance to avert warming. Also criticised were the deferral of decisions on the legal form of and level of emission reductions required.[14] Reuters Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle reported that to some delegates, particularly those from vulnerable African nations and low-lying islands, the Cancun talks seemed like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and the the Cancun agreements “fell woefully short of action needed”. [15]
