The question of the legal form of the agreement has not been resolved in Cancun and will be debated next year in the run-up to Durban. The ad hoc working group on long-term cooperation has been extended by one year and is expected to continue to discuss “legal options for an agreed outcome.” This means that the parties have yet to decide whether to adopt a legally binding agreement complementing the Kyoto Protocol, a comprehensive legally binding agreement for all countries that would replace the Kyoto Protocol, or another option in which the parties cooperate through COP decisions rather than a new treaty. (Jacob Werksman, director of institutions and governance at WRI, will soon have a position in the legal form.) 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. From the beginning, Cancun was very different from Copenhagen: fewer heads of state and government, less media intoxication and celebrity electrifying corridors and much lower expectations. Cancun was not expected to produce a “big bang” result, but it was widely seen as a springboard for a future agreement. Nevertheless, most conference participants agreed that the issue of multilateralism and the fate of the UNFCCC process was important: “If we do not reach agreement on this, I do not see how it would be otherwise next year,” commented one negotiator. Overall, participants agreed that a further failure could lead countries to remove the UNFCCC framework and take increasingly informal initiatives, hampering international cooperation on climate change. Some felt that this “real and concrete risk” to the UNFCCC process had increased the willingness of the parties, or even the determination to seek acceptable compromises in Cancun. 138 contracting parties have yet to agree on Article 42 (vote) of the draft internal regulation applied since 1996, with the exception of Article 42. In the absence of agreement, decisions are taken by mutual agreement.
See draft internal regulation of the Conference of the Parties and its subsidiary bodies to the FCCC/CP/1996/2 (22 May 1996). Consensus was identified in Articles 15, paragraph 3, and 7, paragraph 2, point k), fccc and arts 13(5), 20, paragraph 3, and 21(4), to the Kyoto Protocol as a preferred method of decision-making. These are only the big differences, but there are important details in each of these agreements that will greatly improve international action for global warming. The brief response cancun provided details that can now guide the effective implementation of each of these key elements (in total each of these provisions was only 3 sentences in the Copenhagen agreement). We can now translate these agreements into practical measures that will help developing countries reduce emissions from deforestation, use clean energy and adapt to the effects of climate change. That is why countries have agreed to start working implementing these measures on the ground. And they agreed to do it together so that their individual actions collaborate with other countries, which will multiply the impact on the ground. However, many of the objectives presented under the Copenhagen agreement are unclear as to what they contain or not. Therefore, the agreement provides that the UNFCCC secretariat must hold workshops to clarify the assumptions underlying emissions reduction targets, including those for agricultural use, land use changes and forestry (LCFULU) and compensation.