US's leadership was central to achieving success at the December Copenhagen climate talks. Its president was expected to carefully steer other leaders into agreeing to measures that would lead to legally binding agreements. Yet hiccups had not been ruled out. Three meetings in the last quarter of the year that were to make the December talks smooth sailing had stalled as nations disagreed. That made leaders across the world express cautious optimism in the weeks leading to the conference. Worst case scenario at Copenhagen was postulated: The talks might stand still. Advanced nations would collectively refuse to pledge mid-term targets that are considered strict enough by developing nations; parties would fail to agree on the funding mechanisms for adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer. That meant, instead of having some concrete agreements to work with, negotiations would have to continue in about six months in 2010 and drag on for another year or two before even a weak agreement is reached.

But there were optimistic projections too: By the end of Copenhagen, advanced economies would have been bound by Kyoto's first phase in 2008-12 to curb emissions from 1990 levels, and they would have pledge to make more cuts by 2020; they would pledge to gather funds to pay for climate change adaptation and mitigation programs and arrange for transfer of affordable clean-energy technology to developing nations. On the other hand, developing nations would have agreed to bring on stream "nationally appropriate" climate change mitigation actions which would boost use of renewable energy, carbon trading or energy efficiency. In return for this they would get firm pledges for support financially and technologically. Generally, all nations would have reached agreement on how developing countries can access funding and how new funds that may come out from Copenhagen is used. Agreement at Copenhagen was also expected to form basis for expanded set of rules and regulations on climate issues which then becomes the replacement for Kyoto . But nations would have two years to ratify the new pact after which it becomes enforceable by January, 2013.

'Today we've made meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen . For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change,' Barack Obama said when he arrived to provide needed leadership at Copenhagen on December 18th, a day to the end of the conference. Then he left for Washington the same day before anything was signed. The drama that followed in his wake made his words sound grand; the final outcome of the Copenhagen Conference reflected nothing of the confidence he exuded in his speech.

The signs were there before the conference began: US senate would not be rushed over climate change matters, meaning Obama had to thread softly in what he agrees to at Copenhagen . African nations had joined voices to demand compensation from richer countries; they also joined other developing nations around the world to make advanced nations agree to specific emission cut targets. However, in the morning of December 19th, last day of the conference when things were to be concluded, a heated dispute threatened to derail everything. An interim political agreement called the Copenhagen Accord, patched together by Obama in the course of his diplomacy meetings the previous day was the cause. A small group of developing countries, including Sudan and Venezuela , were at the centre of the dispute. Members of the group berated the process by which the accord was produced. They said they would not allow it to be adopted. And they have the power since the process of UN climate body (UNFCCC) requires unanimity in order to move forward. Country after country passionately argued their position; one delegate even compared the accord to the Holocaust, large scale killing of Jews in the second world war.

In the heated debate, there proposals and counterproposals. When the session ended, the Parties agreed they would "take note" of the accord rather than formally adopt it, a situation that left out Sudan and its allies. As such, the accord became a minute representation of the modest of expectations before the talks began. It was a shadow of even the barest of Obama's aims, one of which was to make major emitters among the developing nations - China, India, and Brazil - agree to a process that would make them adopt concrete commitments; get funds to flow from developed countries to developing ones in aid of their efforts towards combating climate change. But Obama's aim along this line extends further than this and it was because he knew ahead that a full treaty would not emerge from the December talks. His plan was to have what could come on stream immediately, and then use it to build trust in the intervening months before firmer commitments are made.

Now even the American leader has admitted that what comes out of the conference is "not enough" to do what needs to be done. For as China refuses to be drawn along by Obama, a firm commitment to reducing global emissions 50 percent by 2050 is put on hold. And there were no short-term emissions targets for 2020 too. The concrete commitments to "measurement, reporting, and verification" that Obama thought he would draw from China becomes impossible - replaced with intangibles such as encouraging "national communications."

Moreover, there was no clear commitment to making the agreement binding by 2010. This is the most harrowing aspect. The reason is because the outcome of the December conference is meant to be the first of three political obstacles that the American leader needs to overcome in order to make meaningful impact on climate change. In this process, he should have brought, first of all, China and India into an agreement; second, use the Copenhagen Accord to convince his Senate to pass a climate bill and third, use the bill to persuade UNFCCC countries to sign a binding legal treaty in 2010. With what transpired at the conference however, the best that has been achieved is that the first hurdle needed to get the rest of the world to agree to a legally binding treaty is out of the way - meanwhile, world leaders led by Obama would have to continue to work on the other two for some time yet.

•Ajibade, a consultant writer, lives in Abuja