It is now 19:00 of the final scheduled day of the COP15. If all things had gone according to plan, President Obama and all the other leaders would now have been in line to take their "family photo" with smiling faces to congratulate the outcome of a two-year process to come up with a strong international agreement on climate change.

Unfortunately, things did not go according to plan, and here we are, still stuck inside the Bella Center, eating stale food and drinking too much bad coffee to somehow forge out an agreement. Not doing so would result in a lot of embarrassment for all the leaders who are literally placed under the scrutiny of the world.

Earlier today, leaders including President Obama met at the highest level to provide the final political push towards an agreement - such meetings continued during the course of the day. According to reports, the direction of these high-level talks have so far been very volatile. New versions of the "agreement" are being circulated informally by the press every few hours.

http://www.facebook.com/TheClimatePool#/notes/the-climate-pool/a-flurry-of-draft-texts-for-a-copenhagen-accord/234631539413

 There are further reports that heads of state have been requested by UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon to stay on for the weekend to "seal the deal". Read our blog tomorrow to find out what happened in the end!

A confusing outcome fit for a very confusing conference. Such was the mood in the venue after 26 Heads of State from the among them the US, India, China, Brazil, and South Africa agreed on a proposal for a legally non-binding agreement a.k.a. the "Copenhagen Accord". As of 4 AM on the Saturday morning when this blog is being written, it remains unclear whether this proposal will be accepted by all the other countries. An alternative proposal to continue the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention is proposed by Nicaragua supported by several other countries.

Having an initial look at the Copenhagen Accord, the following points catch our eyes:

• Continued work being proposed under the two tracks of the Kyoto Protocol and Long-term Cooperative Actions
• Underlying goal of stabilising at below 2 degree changes
• Strong consideration of adaptation,
• Figures still blank for reduction targets for developed countries
• Mitigation actions for developing countries (NAMAs) consisting of those which are conducted domestically (without support, and MRV'd domestically) and those conducted with support (MRV'd internationally).
• Only financial commitment is in the short term (2010 to 2012) of 30 billion US each year by developed countries

So, what could this mean for land transport?

Firstly, for good or for worse, there is (except for forestry) no mention of any specific sector within the text. Even reference to agriculture is now gone. This means the transport sector has an equal chance compared to the other sectors to receive attention. (Our intention of course is that all relevant sectors are addressed!)

Secondly, a strong recognition of adaptation could provide better funding for capacity building as well as investment in adaptation of transport infrastructure.

On the other hand, issues around mitigation are still left quite vague. There is no mention of say a sectoral break down of NAMAs, nor exactly how NAMAs in each sector are to be financed (and where the money will come from). Mention of co-benefits is also completely gone.

One thing to welcome however, is the mention of supporting policies and programmes, and not just projects.

Finally, there are various concepts around financing, technology transfer and capacity building which would be very relevant for transport. There is a need to start thinking of how the proposed "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund" can provide resources for sustainable, low carbon transport. Also, the Technology Mechanism being proposed should benefit from receiving specialists from the transport sector.