The hard-fought agreement sets out guidelines for the submission of national greenhouse-gas pledges next year.

But, the groups said, initially ambitious standards became weaker the longer the talks wound on.

In a tug-of-war between rich and developing nation interests, the end result was a “lacklustre plan with little scientific relevancy,” said WWF’s climate expert, Samantha Smith.

“Against the backdrop of extreme weather in the Philippines and potentially the hottest year ever recorded, governments at the UN climate talks in Lima opted for a half-baked plan to cut emissions,” she added.

NGOs and developing nations alike had hoped the agreement would compel rich countries to include information in their pledges on climate adaptation and other financial help.

They had also sought a robust assessment of the pledges’ aggregate effect and a mechanism for ramping up contributions, if they were judged inadequate to meet the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels.

But expectations were mostly disappointed.

The talks, which spilled more than 30 hours into overtime, got bogged down early on in a fight over “differentiation” — how to divide responsibility for carbon cuts between rich and poor nations.

The outcome, said the US-based Union of Concerned Scientists, reflected “the bare minimum” to keep negotiations on the road to inking a climate-saving pact in Paris next December that will have the pledges at its heart.

Rather than imposing a requirement, the text merely “urges” parties to “consider including an adaptation component” in their pledges, and on finance similarly “urges” developed countries to provide support.

In a nod to poor country concerns, the new text did reintroduce a reference to “common but differentiated responsibilities” that had been dropped from earlier drafts.

“The package... Puts in place a draft of a Paris agreement without narrowing down any of the difficult political issues that have plagued global efforts to address climate change for more than 20 years,” said Oxfam.

“The deal does not require that the initial pledges parties make in 2015 reflect their fair share, does not guarantee that these offers will use common or comprehensive information, or have any mechanism to review whether they will prevent catastrophic warming or not.”

However, the European Union on Sunday welcomed the outcome of the climate talks as a “step forward” toward a global deal in Paris next year even though it had wanted a more ambitious result.

The EU “welcomes the outcome... As a step forward on the road to a global climate deal in Paris next year,” according to a statement from the European Commission, the EU executive arm.

“As countries come forward with proposed emissions reduction targets in the coming months, the Lima Call requires all countries to describe their proposed target in a clear, transparent and understandable way,” it said.

“This will enable us to quantify our proposed contributions,” it added.

Miguel Arias Canete, EU commissioner for climate action and energy, said his delegation came to Lima to lay “the ground for negotiations” in the French capital. “And although the EU wanted a more ambitious outcome from Lima, we believe that we are on track to agree a global deal in Paris next year,” Mr Canete was quoted by the commission as saying.

In October, the EU set its own goals that include cutting carbon emissions by at least 40 per cent by 2030 from 1990 levels.