AWG-LCA and AWG-KP met from October 1 to 7, 2011 in Panama City, Panama. The AWG-KP focused on outstanding issues and other options for clarification regarding mitigation objectives, the nature and possible content of the rules for a second commitment period and the role of a possible second commitment period in a balanced outcome in Durban. Under the CPA, negotiators conducted expanded procedural discussions on the basis of Decision 1/CP.16 and the Bali Action Plan. The parties worked on adjustment, finance, technology, capacity building, common vision, review of the overall long-term objective, legal options and various mitigation issues. The result of most informal group discussions was a „text form“ that was forwarded to Durban for further discussions. CMP decision: in its decision (FCCC/KP/CMP/2011/L.10), the CMP decides, among other things, that the concept of meaning should be applied uniformly within the cdR; Defines material information Decides what matters is; decides that, on the basis of the notified data, the scope of the concept of meaning and the thresholds of service will be reviewed by the CDM Board of Directors no later than one year after their implementation. From a contractual point of view, the main task of binding international agreements is to ensure that countries respect compliance. Each country only benefits from an agreement if its actions are replicated by others – for example, in the case of climate change, only if each country benefits not only from its own emission reductions, but also from those of other states. International agreements define these reciprocal measures and, through the contractual commitment process, 41 This condition has been known as the „mandate“ for debate – with regard to the call for the opening of a process for the production of a new treaty with a mandate, in order to bind all the big carbon polluters under the same legal conditions – and it drew everyone into a discussion about the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, including the United States, which is not partisan, because the U.S. Senate has historically opposed the signing of an agreement that China and India are giving.
