Blue box agreement on agriculture

World Trade Organization

WTO Agreement on Agriculture

The systems of internal support in agriculture are governed by the Agreement on Agriculture negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) and which came into force in 1995. The long-term goal of the Agreement on Agriculture is to create a fair and market-oriented agricultural trade system and to initiate a reform process through negotiations on obligations of support and protection and through the introduction of more consistent and operationally more effective rules and disciplinary measures. Agriculture therefore has a special position, as this branch of industry is regulated by its own convention, the provisions of which are authoritative.

Legal basis

In the context of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) signed in Geneva in 1947 and the Agreement on the Establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) signed in Marrakech in 1994 (OJ L 336 of 23.12.1994), the European Union and its member states rely on the articles 207 (Common Commercial Policy) and Articles 217 and 218 (International agreements) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (see Abstract 5.2.2 ).

General framework of the external dimension of the CAP

The entire common agricultural policy (CAP) has been subject to the rules of the WTO since 1995, including the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), with which a binding dispute settlement procedure was introduced and the signatory states comply with the new multilateral rules.

In addition, the CAP is linked to concessions in the agricultural sector, which are recognized in the framework of multilateral and bilateral agreements for the benefit of a large number of countries, as well as to unilateral derogations granted under the General System of Preferences (GSP). These preferential agreements, which explain the high proportion of imports from developing countries in the European Union’s agricultural imports, must also be compatible with WTO rules (see Abstract 3.2.10 , Table VI).

WTO Agreement on Agriculture

The 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) initially applied to agriculture, but it was incomplete and the signatory states (or “parties”) excluded this industry from the scope of the principles set out in the general agreement. Between 1947 and 1994, Member States were allowed to subsidize the export of agricultural raw materials and, under certain circumstances, to impose import restrictions, with the result that the main agricultural raw materials were subject to trade barriers that other categories of goods did not apply to this extent are common. The road to a fair and market-oriented agricultural trade system was therefore long and rocky, until the negotiations during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) could finally be brought to a conclusion. Agriculture enjoys a special status in the WTO conventions and agreements on trade in goods (which were signed in 1994 and entered into force on 1 January 1995), as this branch of industry has its own agreement, the provisions of which are authoritative. In addition, certain provisions of the Convention on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) also apply to agricultural production and agricultural trade. The same applies to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) with regard to the protection of geographical indications.

These agreements allow for some flexibility in terms of enforcement, in favor of WTO developing countries (special and differentiated treatment) as well as the least developed countries (LDCs) and developing countries which are net importers of food ( Special provisions).

On the basis of the Agreement on Agriculture, the WTO member states have committed themselves to a program to reform the existing agricultural policy, which contains concrete, binding commitments in three important areas:

A. Market Access

The Agriculture Agreement aims to improve market access through the following measures:

Conversion of all protective measures at the borders into tariffs (tariff equivalents) and their subsequent gradual reduction (by 36% in the period 1995-2000 compared to the reference period 1986-1988) for industrialized countries and by 24% for developing countries),
Obligation to grant “minimum access” to third countries through the introduction of tariff quotas for certain products that are not subject to any tariff regulation, whereby the tariff quotas at the end of 2000 for each product group amounted to 5% of the consumption of the reference period 1986-1988.

Maintaining tariff concessions for imports at least at the level that existed between 1986 and 1988 (so-called “usual access”); Introduction of a special safeguard clause that takes effect when the volume of imports exceeds a certain threshold or when the prices for imports fall below a certain threshold.

B. Internal support

The Agreement on Agriculture provided for a gradual reduction in aid depending on the type of aid. These are categorized into different “boxes” according to the distortive effects they may have on trade within the agricultural markets.

The “yellow box” (also known as the “aggregated measure of support” (AMS)) includes price support and production-linked subsidies that are not exempt from the reduction obligation. Their volume was to be reduced by 20% within six years, based on the reference period 1986-1988. All WTO countries can also use the de minimis clause, which makes it possible to deduct from the current support the amount of which is less than 5% of the value of the product concerned (targeted aid) or of the total value of agricultural production (general aid) to exclude aggregated measure of support. A threshold of 10% applies to developing countries.

The ‘blue box’ includes aid linked to supply control programs that are exempt from reduction commitments, such as direct aid based on a specific area and yield or paid on the basis of a specific number of livestock (as in the case of the 1992 of “compensatory aid ” authorized under the CAP) ( 3.2.3 ). For each product, however, the amount of support granted under the AMS and the aid that is part of the blue box (“total AMS”) may not exceed the amount of the total support granted in the 1992 marketing year.

The “Green Box” comprises two support groups. The first includes programs for public services (e.g. research, training, advice, marketing, infrastructure, internal food aid and public storage for food security purposes). The second includes direct payments to producers who are completely decoupled from production. These are mainly programs for securing income and ensuring security (natural disasters, financial participation of the state in crop insurance, etc.), structural adjustment programs and environmental protection programs. Since all Green Box subsidies are considered compatible with the WTO framework, they are completely exempt from the reduction.
C. Export Subsidies

The export subsidies had to be reduced by 21% in volume and by 36% in budget over a period of six years in relation to the 1986-1990 reference period (1986-1992 for beef). In the European Union, this linear reduction affected 20 product groups. Only the budget cut was applied for processed products.

The implications of the Agriculture Agreement for the CAP

A sub-objective of the 1992 CAP reform was to facilitate the signing of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. Indeed, the European Union has largely met the commitments it made in Marrakech.

A. Market Access

The European Union’s bound tariff commitments covered 1 764 tariff lines. While the average bound tariff rate for agricultural products was 26% at the beginning of the implementation period, it was only 17% at the end of this period. In addition, the European Union applied zero or minimum tariff rates for 775 of the total of 1 764 tariff items. For only 8% of the tariff items, the duty rate is over 50%. These peak tariffs are levied on dairy products, beef, cereals and cereal products, as well as on sugar and sweeteners. In terms of tariff quotas, the European Union introduced a total of 87 quotas, 37 of which relate to so-called minimum access and 44 to so-called normal access. In 2014 about 71% of all agricultural and food imports, i.e. H. Goods worth EUR 72 billion imported into the Union at zero tariffs.

B. Subsidized Exports

Previously, most of the subsidized exports reported to the WTO came from the European Union, before these subsidies were phased out under the CAP reform in 2013 and fell to zero in 2017. It should be noted, however, that a number of measures taken by our main competitors (e.g. food aid, export credits and state trading companies) are not subject to WTO rules. In future, the EU will only apply export refunds in exceptional cases in the event of severe crises …

Sentences showing subject verb agreement in law

Legal Default Picture

Subject/verb arrangement can appear uncomplicated for native speakers and others comfortable with English; we understand to write “the lawyer argues” and “the attorneys argue.” However, some special scenarios can make it more difficult to tell whether a subject and verb truly do concur. These complications can emerge from the words themselves, or from their order in a particular sentence.

Acknowledging plural and particular nouns

Again, the essentials are straightforward – we normally include an “s” to the end of a noun to form a plural (a group of more than one “accused” constitutes “accuseds”) and understand the most typical irregular plurals (a group of more than one “kid” is a group of “children”). However here are a few to look out for.

Some words you might not recognize are particular:

another – anybody – anyone – anything
each – either – every – everybody
everyone – less – little – much
neither – nobody – none – no one
nothing – somebody – someone – something

1) Words that seem to describe a group but must be treated like individuals because they are grammatically particular. They are:

For some words, it might help to consider the word split into its parts, so that “everybody” becomes “each,” “none” becomes “not one,” and so on. This strategy stresses that the topic is “one” (” every” shows which “one” is under consideration) and “one” is obviously singular.

Incorrect: “Of all the trainees in the class, none have taken Latin.”

Right: “Of all the students in the class, none has actually taken Latin.”

2) Words that end in “s” however represent a concept as a whole. Some examples: news, politics, data, economics.

Incorrect: “Gymnastics are more hazardous than football.”

Right: “Gymnastics is more unsafe than football.”

3) Collective nouns that represent a group of individuals acting as a body. Consider the following:

Right: “The Sons of the Revolution has actually an intertwined relationship with the state.”

Although under normal scenarios, “sons” would take a plural verb, in this case the author has actually properly understood that “Sons of the Revolution” is an appropriate noun describing one organization as a whole, instead of several specific children.

Likewise, some common nouns that may represent a group of individuals acting as one are:

board (of directors) – committee – corporation – couple
court – family – government – jury
majority – panel (of judges)

Keep in mind that a few of these words need to be handled differently if they are utilized to represent a group of individuals acting independently (see “Some words you might not recognize are plural,” below), however that some are always singular; for example, whether it includes one individual, as in a high court, or of a body of people, “the court” is regarded as an organization, and for that reason takes a singular verb.

Incorrect: “The court stated that they were ill-equipped to second-guess the trial court judge’s determination.”

Right: “The court specified that it was ill-equipped to second-guess the trial court judge’s decision.”

This is also true of expressions handling time, cash, and weight.

Incorrect: “Five thousand dollars were awarded to the plaintiff.”

Right: “Five thousand dollars was awarded to the complainant.”

Consider such quantities as swelling sums instead of individual dollars (pounds, hours, and so on).

Some words you might not realize are plural:

1) Words that originate from Latin. “Data” and “program” are both plural; although they are typically treated as singular in informal conversation, for the function of professional composing they ought to be treated with technical precision as plural.

Incorrect: “The information does not support this conclusion.”

Right: “The data do not support this conclusion.”


Right: “The datum does not support this conclusion.”

Some singular/plural pairs that follow this model: agendum/agenda, criterion/criteria, datum/data, dictum/dicta.

2) Collective nouns that represent a group of individuals who are acting individually. Whereas, for instance, the word “jury” would take a particular verb when the jurors act in show (” the jury chose that … “), it would take a plural verb when differences between the group are stressed.

Incorrect: “The jury disagrees [among themselves] on this problem.”

Right: “The jury disagree on this concern.”

If this building sounds uncomfortable to you, you may restore the sentence with a various topic:

Right: “The members of the jury disagree on this issue.”

Keep in mind that some collective nouns constantly take plural verbs. Some examples:

elderly – police – poor – young

Acknowledging subjects and verbs in uncommon locations

In numerous sentences, the verb immediately follows the topic: “The law enforcement officer frisked the suspect.” This kind is both common and effective due to the fact that the close distance of subject and verb allows the whole sentence to be understood quickly. Nevertheless, variations take place and you can not always depend upon the topic of the sentence to be the noun just left of the verb. Here are some instances of a little less common structures.

Stepping in words

In some cases a group of words that customize the subject will come prior to the verb. This scenario can be tricky, because it will put a noun carefully associated to the subject right next to the verb. Here’s an example:

Incorrect: “The criminal nature of these occurrences do not divest Family Court of jurisdiction.”

The author has actually attempted to produce contract, matching a plural noun, “events,” with a plural verb, “do not divest.” This error is natural since “incidents” appears where we typically anticipate the topic, right prior to the verb. Nevertheless, “incidents” really comes from a prepositional phrase that customizes an earlier word, “nature,” and the word should concur with that verb:

Right: “The criminal nature of these occurrences does not divest Family Court of jurisdiction.”

A test: Try saying the sentence without the stepping in words: “The criminal nature do not,” or “The criminal nature does not”?

Verbs preceding subjects

While verbs normally come after topics, in a couple of instances you will find them reversed. This is most common in questions (” What is the standard governing municipal tort liability, and which elements must be satisfied to please the unique relationship exception to that guideline?”) and in sentences beginning with “there.”.

Right: “There is a long history of judicial intervention in public schools considering that Brown v. Board of Education.”.

Right: “There are several criteria that courts use in deciding whether to intervene in public schools.”.

Note that “there” is not the subject of the sentence; take care of the verb to discover the subject and look for contract. In the very first example, the subject, “history,” is particular, and ought to be coupled with “is.” In the 2nd, the topic, “requirements,” is plural, and need to be paired with “are.”.

Compound topics.

Subjects made up of numerous specific components accompanied “and” take plural verbs: “Both New Horizons and Queens Rising have agreements with the state to supply twenty-four-hour look after youth.” However, a couple of special cases exist. Keep an eye out for introductory words such as “each,” “every,” “either,” and “neither.”.

Subjects joined with “and” are plural, but topics accompanied “or” or “nor” are not (always). Consider the following:.

Right: “Neither the Office for Civil Rights nor the Human Rights Commission in Vermont is most likely to file a court claim against Bennington.”.

Although the topic has two elements, “Office for Civil Rights” and “Human Rights Commission,” they do not have an additive quality; see “some words you might not recognize are particular,” above, for a conversation of words like “neither.” However, a plural verb is appropriate if the part of the substance subject closest to the verb is plural. A pair of examples will clarify this:.

Right: “Neither the plaintiffs nor the accused wishes to recommend settlement first.”.

Right: “Neither the complainant nor the accuseds want to suggest settlement first.”.

The verb in such cases might be particular or plural, however must agree with the closest part of the topic. Your ear can assist you here; both “offender want” and “defendants desires” sound wrong, no matter any topics they might be paired with.

Finally, when a substance topic involves the word “each” or “every,” use a singular verb. (See “some words you might not realize are particular,” above.).

Right: “Every pleading, written movement, and other paper is needed to bear the signature of at least one attorney of record.”.…

Risks of not having a shareholders agreement

shareholders' agreement

When do I need a shareholders’ agreement?

For the founders of a stock corporation, sooner or later the question arises whether they need a shareholders’ agreement. One often hears from SME circles in particular that this is already part of the standard. But is such a contract absolutely necessary? And what exactly should it contain? We will answer these and other questions about shareholders’ agreements.

At a glance

It is important to know that a shareholders’ agreement regulates the position and obligations of the contracting parties among themselves, but never implies the company as a contracting party. Regulations of the relationships between the AG and the shareholders do not belong in this contract.

Terminology and meaning of the shareholders’ agreement

The shareholders’ agreement has many names. Some call it a pool contract, others a syndicate contract or a shareholder consortium. However, that is all one and the same. A shareholders’ agreement applies exclusively to the legal form of a stock corporation. The basic aim of this contract is to regulate the rights and obligations of shareholders among one another. You can also integrate non-shareholders into the contract – these are usually potential future share buyers.

But why bother when there is stock corporation law? From his point of view, the tasks of a shareholder are very simple: They only have one duty and that is to pay in the corresponding share capital. This may be sufficient within large corporations, in which shareholders are often completely unfamiliar with one another. It usually looks different in smaller companies. In particular, when the company has only a few shareholders, there is a closer relationship with one another. Then you need to know who is working alongside you. This implies the desire to establish equal rules – both from the point of view of the shareholders and the partners.

Structure and content of the shareholders’ agreement

As mentioned before, a shareholders’ agreement does not at any time regulate the corporate law obligations of shareholders towards the stock corporation. It only regulates the obligations between the individual contracting parties themselves.

As far as the scope of the contract is concerned, there are no specific legal provisions. The general legal requirements must be complied with. You must also take into account personal rights and public order. Of course, the contract must not contain any immoral content (Art. 19 Para. 2 OR).

In most cases, a shareholders’ agreement is based on both corporate and contractual agreements. The basis of a shareholders’ agreement usually consists of the following points.

  • Contractual partner preamble
  • Contractual basis
  • Contract duration
  • Criminal law provisions in the event of a breach of contract
  • Succession planning in the event of death
  • Place of jurisdiction
  • Severability clause
  • Most contracting parties opt for this additional content:
  • Voting lock-up clauses
  • Responsible persons and responsibilities on the Board of Directors
  • Disposal regulations and pricing mechanisms
  • Loyalty Duties and Competition Clauses
  • Obligations to make additional payments and make additional payments
  • Regulations on employee participation, especially in the case of succession plans
  • Stalemate clauses
  • Obligation to commit when additional shareholders join

Some of the listed provisions often reinforce the efforts of founders to actively work towards a shareholder agreement, as this content is often perceived as particularly useful within the shareholder relationship. We’ll cover three of them shortly.

Legal form and duration

A shareholders’ agreement can be concluded before, with or after the formation. In theory, this can be done orally. In practice, however, this almost never happens, because at the same time most clauses legally require the written form. This is recommended anyway.

While the contracting parties try to tie the contract down for as long as possible, the law wants to avoid excessive contractual obligations. In spite of this, the term regulation in the law is kept quite open. After all, it contains the information that a shareholders’ agreement may not be concluded “forever”. In practice, the document is therefore usually limited to a certain period of time. At the very least, however, it must be reasonable to terminate the contract, at the latest by the legal deadlines. It is recommended that you set out rules for an extraordinary notice period in addition to an ordinary one.

Contract periods of up to twenty years are not uncommon and are permitted in most cases. Sometimes the parties find a clever method to equate the term with the end of the term of a company. Be careful here, however, as this method is often legally dubious. Ultimately, however, a reasonable term can only be assessed taking into account the content of the contract.

1. Disposal restrictions

Since a shareholder can legally sell his shares at any time without separate regulation, a restriction is one of the most sensible points within a shareholders’ agreement. The following clauses are particularly popular:

Right of first hand

If the shareholder wishes to sell his shares, he is obliged to first offer them to the other contracting parties for purchase for a certain period of time.

Right of first refusal

If the shareholders do not exercise their right of first hand, the shares may be sold to a third party. A right of first refusal gives them a second chance to buy the shares before a third party can complete the purchase.

In any case, sales restrictions should specify who and when may make use of a right of first refusal and how the share price should be determined. You can optionally add further provisions within this.

2. Voting obligation clauses

Voting clauses mean that shareholders are contractually obliged to vote for certain decisions in the general meeting uniformly or in a certain way. This is to avoid a tie. For example, this can affect the decision on the percentage of the profit distribution or the election of the board of directors. Such a point of the contract is permissible as long as it neither violates the law nor can a purchase of votes be assumed. This is forbidden.

3. Duty of loyalty and non-competition

Within a stock corporation, a contractually stipulated non-competition clause applies to employees, managing directors and members of the board of directors. But what about the shareholders? These are not included by default, as the non-competition clause is based on a different contract. However, competition rules can be included in a shareholders’ agreement. However, sensitivity is required when it comes to duration, scope and spatial orientation. Especially if the prohibition goes beyond the departure of a shareholder. Although there should be clear rules, the freedom of the shareholder should not be completely restricted.


The conclusion of a shareholders’ agreement is not mandatory, but appears to be useful for most SMEs. It offers the opportunity to create clear structures and rules between shareholders. Ambiguities and disputes can also be reduced or avoided entirely. Since a shareholders’ agreement is not subject to any legal structures, it gives the parties a lot of creative freedom on the one hand. On the other hand, the crux here is that the elaboration is very complex. Consultation with a specialist lawyer can be of great help here.

We are happy to help you find a lawyer who suits your individual concerns. Use our free, online inquiry form and receive offers from suitable specialist lawyers in your area.

Paris climate agreement tourism


The climate conference in Paris

On December 12, 2015, history was made in Paris: the Paris Agreement was passed at the international climate conference, also known as “COP 21”. After many years of intensive negotiations, all states have committed themselves to changing the world economy in a climate-friendly way. This is a historic step – according to the previous regulation in the so-called Kyoto Protocol, only a few industrialized countries were obliged to reduce emissions.

Even at the beginning of the climate conference it became clear that the global community takes the threat from climate change very seriously: Over 150 heads of state and government were on site at the opening in Paris and signaled the unconditional will of the international community to provide a joint response to the threat posed by the Give climate change. The Federal Government was represented by Federal Chancellor Merkel, Federal Environment Minister Hendricks and Federal Development Minister Müller. The delegations negotiated intensively for two weeks – and laid the basis for a new era in international climate protection. The Paris Agreement sends a clear signal for a fundamental change and calls for an economy that takes into account the natural limits of the planet. Fits to,

Paris Agreement

In contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, almost all countries in the world have now defined national climate protection targets. With ratification, the states are obliged under international law to take measures to achieve the goals. Another important part of the agreement: poorer countries are supported financially as well as through knowledge and technology transfer to implement their climate protection measures.

The respective national climate protection goals are determined by the states themselves and were not the subject of the negotiations. However, the agreement obliges the governments to present new targets every five years after a global inventory. And they have to be significantly more ambitious than the previous ones. A committee to monitor implementation and rules on transparency ensure that states comply with their obligations. This regular cycle of increasing ambitions is intended to cope with the problem that the previous climate protection contributions by states are not yet sufficient to adequately curb global warming. The national climate protection targets must therefore be tightened step by step if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.

The primary goal is to limit global warming to well below two degrees Celsius and, if possible, below 1.5 degrees Celsius. So Paris was just the beginning: All market participants now have a long-term and reliable orientation for the necessary transformation. Our present is already heavily influenced by the implementation of the Paris resolutions – both on an international and a national level.

1. The Paris Agreement on Climate Change

The Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992. The world has changed fundamentally since then. In 1990 industrialized countries caused around 60 percent of global emissions, today it is only around a third. In 2030, developing countries will be responsible for around three quarters of annual global emissions. The Kyoto Protocol, which previously regulated the limitation of greenhouse gases, is no longer sufficient today. It only legally obliges the EU and a few other industrialized countries to reduce emissions. This covers less than 15 percent of global emissions.

For the first time, the Paris Agreement makes all states responsible for climate protection: All states are obliged under international law to draw up a nationally determined contribution (NDC). And they have to decide on measures to implement it. But it’s not just about reducing emissions. In Paris, ways of adapting to climate change were also decided. The international community supports developing countries financially and technologically, helps to build up knowledge and know-how and to deal with damage caused by climate change. It also helps those responsible in these countries to properly report on climate protection measures and support services.

Submitted NDCS (English)

In Paris, the countries agreed on common goals that they want to achieve with the agreement. Global warming should be limited to well below two degrees Celsius, ideally to 1.5 degrees, compared to the pre-industrial level. This is the first time that these upper limits have been anchored in an international treaty. In order to achieve this goal, no more climate-damaging gases may be emitted in the second half of this century than are withdrawn from the atmosphere through so-called sinks, such as forests. This “greenhouse gas neutrality” can only be achieved if the global economy quickly and consistently converts significantly less carbon, ie if it “decarbonizes” itself. Another goal of the contract:

But who exactly should take on which obligation? That was one of the key issues in Paris that was intensely negotiated. We succeeded in breaking the rigid dichotomy between industrialized and developing countries, which no longer fits today’s changed global economic conditions. The Paris Agreement relies on a different principle, the so-called “differentiated differentiation”. That means: individual subject areas are treated differently. And the respective individual circumstances of the countries are given greater consideration. For example, industrialized countries must continue to provide developing countries with financial and technological support for climate protection. But other countries are also called upon to help if they are able to.

2. States’ climate protection contributions (INDCs)


Almost all states submitted their planned nationally determined contribution (“INDC”) to the agreement in the course of 2015. The treaty obliges all countries to prepare, announce and implement such INDCs. The obligation applies to industrialized countries as well as to emerging and developing countries. In Paris it was already clear that the previous climate protection contributions were not yet sufficient to keep the upper limit of two degrees Celsius. It was therefore decided to set a new deadline for 2020. The states can then update their contributions, which cover the period up to 2025 or 2030, or present new measures. In the future, the federal states will have to update their climate protection targets every five years. The “progression principle” applies: The following contributions must be more ambitious than the previous ones. Two years before the new national measures are presented, a global review is carried out to determine whether the overall goals of the agreement will be achieved. This “global stocktake” makes it clear whether all governments are together on course in the areas of mitigation, adaptation and support. The first such review dialog took place in 2018 as part of the Talanoa Dialog.The focus was on progress made in reducing greenhouse gases. In 2023, the successes in adapting to climate change and supporting other countries will also be checked for the first time. The findings of these reviews are to be taken into account when preparing the next contributions from the states.

It is not easy to determine a global level of aspiration and at the same time to measure the contributions of the individual states to it. That is why the states in Paris agreed to provide information about their national conditions. These will be reviewed by an international body. The reporting and the review are based on common guidelines for industrialized and developing countries, which were drawn up in 2018 as part of the COP 24 in Katowice. The new transparency system of the Paris Agreement is intended to replace the existing two-part system in which the developing countries were only obliged to a very limited extent to transmit information. In the future, these special regulations will only apply to countries get help building capacity – and only temporarily. The aim is to make measures for reduction and financing comparable and thus to create trust and at the same time to be able to exert pressure in the event of non-compliance.

A separate committee was set up in Paris to monitor and support compliance with the agreement – similar to the rating agencies in the financial market. Even if the committee is unlikely to have severe sanctions in place, the actions of the committee have a strong influence on a country’s reputation at international level. This reputation is a precious commodity – after all, governments want to continue to be seen as trustworthy partners on the international stage. The exact powers and mechanisms of the committee will be negotiated in the near future.

3. Finance and Technology

Important decisions were also made at the climate conference on the subject of financing. Global warming can only be limited to well below two degrees Celsius or even to 1.5 degrees if …