If the climate change summit wasn't an outright failure, as many had thought it would be, it isn't a success either by any means.

In the end, though, the US and the political bloc that includes India and China have endorsed a political accord.

"Finally, we sealed a deal, and it is a real deal. Bringing world leaders to the table paid off," Un Secretary General  Bite Ban Ki Moon said on Saturday, putting a positive spin on the outcome of the fortnight long climate change summit.

But here's the hard fact: The summit has only recognised not endorsed the political accord brokered by US President Barack Obama and the BASIC bloc that includes India and China.

The "Copenhagen Accord" as it's being called, was drafted after almost 12 hours of negotiations with the US insisting on tighter monitoring of emission cuts and developing nations resisting legally binding emission cuts.

So, what did Copenhagen yield?

The accord sets end-January 2010 as the deadline for all nations to submit plans for curbs on emissions to the United Nations and recognises that emissions must be reduced enough to keep increase in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.

But it has no deadline to make commitments to cut emissions legally binding. Nor does it mention a peak year or a collective target for cutting emissions.
 
Finally, a compromise was reached and it was this draft achieved after two days of bitter negotiations that was finally placed before 193 countries. But even here, it faced stiff opposition from several countries which felt left out of the drafting process and claimed that the deal just did not do enough.

The accord was supported by the African Union, Japan, Small Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Norway, but it met with fierce opposition from countries like Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, and Costa Rica.

"We cannot be forced to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact. Mr PM will not bribe us to destroy the continent. In conducting inquiry your duty as president of COP15, you have been biased and violated all the rules of procedure and transparency," said Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, head of the G77.

"We do not agree with the process with which document was made; this is G-192, and not G-25. Discussions were not transparent and numbers given in document are not sufficient. We can't behave like children who study a night before exams. There are very serious flaws within this document that cannot be reconciled," said a representative from Venezuela.

Talks came to the brink of collapse, the plenary had to be suspended several times but in the end, there was a compromise. The summit merely 'noted' the accord to show that the Copenhagen summit hadn't failed completely.

The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything for everyone, and while it does emphasise the growing clout of the BASIC group of countries including India, the fact that its provisions are not legally binding will further weaken attempts to restrict green house gasses according to environmentalists.