اول اینکه امروز داشتم توافق نامه کپنهاگ (Copenhagen Accord) را می خواندم که دیدم اسم ایران در لیست کشورهای تایید کننده نیست. از یکی از دوستان جویا شدم و گفت که ایران به همراه برخی دیگر از کشورها این توافق نامه را امضا نکرده است. یکی از آن کشورها بولیوی است که امروز لینکی در مورد دیدگاه هایش در مذاکرات دیدم که به نظرم قابل توجه است. در این متن که انعکاس صحبت های نماینده بولیوی در مذاکرات بن است این کشور از برخی توافقات حاصله ابراز نارضایتی کرده است. وی مبلغ تخصیص یافته را برای مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی در کشورهای در حال توسعه بسیار اندک دانسته و بر این عقیده است که مذاکرات خواسته های اصلی مردم و نهادهای اجتماعی را تامین نمی کند. سرانه ی سالانه کمک های پیشنهادی به کشورهای در حال توسعه حدود بیست دلار است. قصد اظهار نظر در مورد مبلغ کمک را ندارم اما به نظرم اینکه گاهی برخی اعداد را به طور سرانه حساب کنیم و بعد بگوییم که کم یا زیاد هستند کمی غیرمنطقی است. این خبر به همراه یک خبر دیگر در مورد موضع برخی کشورهای توسعه یافته اینجا هم درج شده است. 

دومین مطلب امشب از اینجا است که نویسنده ی آن بر این عقیده است که دورنمایی از امید در مذاکرات بن مشاهده می شود و به نظر می رسد زمینه ی آغاز کمک های مالی جدی به کشورهای در حال توسعه و زیان دیده فراهم شود و بنا گفته ی نماینده ی استرالیایی فضای مذاکرات مثبت است. در مطلب یک پاراگراف خوب دیدم که برای آنکه در ترجمه خرابش نکنم آن را به طور مستقیم اینجا ذکر می کنم.

Realising this problem, the UN Secretary-General appointed an advisory group earlier this year to examine all sorts of innovative sources of finance that could be used to reach the target of $100 billion annually for developing countries by 2020. It did not please everybody in Bonn that this panel was meeting outside the jurisdiction of the UNFCCC, but there was broad recognition that new thinking is drastically needed in this area. The presence of the advisory group does not preclude developed countries from meeting their commitment to provide substantial additional public resources to fight climate change in parts of the world such as Africa, which have done nothing to cause a crisis that is already hitting them hard. Source

در انتها برای تکمیل شدن بحث بخش هایی از مقاله ی دیگری را که امروز اینجا دیدم درج می کنم. در این مطلب به طور خلاصه موضع کشورهای مختلف در این حوزه درج شده است. 

Tuesday, the ad hoc working group on long-term co-operative action (AWG-LCA) began discussing a 42-page text to facilitate negotiation drafted by chairwoman, Zimbabwean diplomat Margaret Mukahanana-Sangarwe.

G77 - representing over 130 nations and therefore the majority of the UNFCCC's 192 nations - expressed the need to "have a balance of issues in the draft text." Furthermore, it underscored that the texts "needs ... some restructurings to be in accordance with the Bali Action Plan."

The Bali Action Plan was adopted by the UNFCCC in 2007 and established the two working groups, making the following issues priorities: 1. a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse emissions reductions; 2. the funding and transfer of technology from developed nations to developing nations to assist them with adaptation to climate change; and 3. mitigation of climate change.

G77's position and concerns was seconded by virtually all nation groups and individual nations, including the Africa Group, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

The Africa Group also noted "the imbalance of the structure of the text, which does not reflect the Bali Action." AOSIS, too, underscored that "the negotiations must be made in accordance with the Bali Action Plan", adding that "the consequences of climate change are already being felt. We refuse to the believe that the international community will allow its weakest and most vulnerable to be continue to be exposed to climate change."

AOSIS member Tuvalu stated that it does "not support language from the Copenhagen Accord on so-called Green Funding. We do not consider it appropriate to include any Copenhagen Accord language, as this does not represent a consensus decision."

U.S. climate negotiator John Pershing responded stingingly, stating "I note that many here say that the Copenhagen Accord has no standing but the LCA does. Unfortunately, that's not true. The version of the LCA that we are working on is not one others have signed onto. It doesn't reflect an agreement. It doesn't have any standing."

Pershing added that "the U.S. supports a legally binding agreement as long as it equally distributes responsibility, except for LDCs," which suggests that the U.S. intends to lobby for a position whereby not only Annex I countries are held responsible for commitments to greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

The Kyoto Protocol agreed that Annex I countries would take responsibility for greenhouse gas reductions, since they are historically responsible for producing the bulk of CO2 emissions. But the four other co-authors of the Copenhagen Accord - Brazil, China, India, and South Africa - are not considered Annex I countries. And the shared responsibility was a sticking point for the U.S.

Prior to the UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, summits had taken place in various contexts and they asked that their findings be included in the UNFCCC considerations and draft text.