UNFCCC COP15

UNFCCC COP15
Name	Conference of the Parties (COP15)
Caption	COP15 venue
Date	December 2009
Location	Copenhagen, Denmark
Convened by	United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Participants	Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations
Result	Copenhagen Accord (political agreement)

UNFCCC COP15 The 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, formally the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, convened heads of state, ministers, negotiators, and civil society to address global greenhouse gas mitigation, adaptation finance, and institutional reform. Hosted in Copenhagen, the meeting sought to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol and to advance negotiating tracks under the Bali Road Map and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties while engaging leaders from the G20, the European Union, the African Union, and the Alliance of Small Island States.

Background and objectives

The summit followed earlier milestones such as the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the 2007 Bali Climate Conference, and the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference. It aimed to bridge commitments among Annex I countries, Non-Annex I Parties, the United States of America, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of India, the Federative Republic of Brazil, and the Russian Federation. Intended outcomes included quantified emission reductions, global temperature targets influenced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments, and financial mechanisms inspired by proposals from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations Development Programme for fast-start finance and long-term climate funding.

Negotiations and key issues

Negotiations centered on mitigation pledges from Annex I Parties and commitments from large developing emitters such as China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, contentious legal form debated by the European Union and the United States of America, and finansial architecture proposed by the G77 and China, Small Island Developing States, and the Least Developed Countries. Delegates contested measurement, reporting and verification frameworks linked to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change procedures, the role of the Green Climate Fund concept, technology transfer mechanisms advocated by the World Intellectual Property Organization, and mechanisms for avoided deforestation referenced to REDD+ proposals promoted by Norway and Japan. Parallel discussions invoked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios, the Stern Review economics, and science-policy interplay exemplified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Outcomes and agreements

The summit produced the political Copenhagen Accord, drafted through a high-level process involving leaders from the United States of America, China, Brazil, India, and South Africa—collectively known during the summit as the Conciliation Group—and recognized at COP but not formally adopted as a binding treaty. The Accord set goals referencing a global temperature limit of 2 °C as mediated by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance, included non-binding national mitigation pledges, and initiated fast-start finance commitments by developed countries such as United States of America, European Union members, Japan, and Norway intended to support adaptation in Africa and Small Island Developing States. It also called for establishing measurement, reporting and verification systems, and launched negotiations toward mechanisms later formalized under the Cancún Agreements and frameworks leading to the Paris Agreement.

National and stakeholder positions

Major emitters adopted divergent stances: the United States of America favored a political agreement aligned with domestic legislation trajectories, while the European Union pushed for an ambitious binding treaty, and the People's Republic of China and India emphasized common but differentiated responsibilities as enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The G77 and China bloc, backed by the African Union, argued for predictable public finance and technology transfer, whereas the Umbrella Group and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members focused on market mechanisms and flexible commitments. Non-state actors including Greenpeace, WWF, Oxfam International, Friends of the Earth, 350.org, the World Resources Institute, and indigenous delegations exerted pressure through protests, briefings, and alternative proposals.

Implementation and follow-up mechanisms

Although the Copenhagen Accord lacked binding treaty status, it established operational elements later integrated into UNFCCC processes, influencing the creation of the Green Climate Fund, the operationalization of REDD+, modalities for Measurement, Reporting and Verification piloted in subsequent COP sessions, and paved the way for the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action negotiations and the eventual Paris Agreement architecture. Implementation relied on national action plans such as Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions from developing parties, finance pledges monitored by entities including the OECD and the United Nations Environment Programme, and technology transfer initiatives coordinated with the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and the World Bank.

Controversies and criticisms

The summit was criticized for opaque high-level deal-making, exemplified by secret negotiations among leaders including the President of the United States and the Premier of the People's Republic of China, and for the limited legal status of the Copenhagen Accord as spotlighted by the Alliance of Small Island States and Least Developed Countries. Civil society groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch contested access restrictions and policing of protests, while scientists affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change debated the adequacy of pledges against emissions pathways. Accusations of backroom bargaining, the role of emissaries from the Royal Danish Government, disputes over pledged finance delivery monitored by the World Bank, and critiques from economists referencing the Stern Review shaped post-summit analyses and fueled reforms leading into COP16 and subsequent negotiating rounds.

Category:United Nations climate change conferences