The views of NGOs and think-tanks seem significant if one goes through the fine-prints of the Lima climate talks outcome.

The agreed text - Lima Call for Climate Action - shows that all the countries will by October 1 provide the UNFCCC secretariat their INDCs - 'Intended Nationally Determined Contributions' (their mitigation targets and adaptation measures) - to achieve the goal of keeping the global temperature rise below 2 degree Celsius by the end of the 21st century. But if one goes deeper into the text, it indicates how flimsy the agreement is.

The text prefers to use "may" instead of "shall" while asking countries to provide their INDCs using various parameters and reference points like base year, time frame or periods for implementation. It, at the same time, remained silent on specifics of those references. Obviously, it was done to save the talks from disastrous end as no country wanted to commit either for pre-2020 (applicable for rich nations) or post-2020 (all countries) periods at this juncture.

It urged developed countries to enhance their ambition in the pre-2020 period. But, the parties gave the rich nations enough concession in letting them get rid of certain commitments. Besides, developing countries got references of financial support, technology transfer and 'loss and damage' mentioned in the agreed text, but it lacked definite roadmap and any specific target from the rich block on all these fronts.

"Developed countries have not pledged to reduce their emissions from now till 2020. They have also not given any concrete assurance to provide finance and technology to the developing countries. Every country can now decide what they want to do to reduce their emissions. But they will not be asked to explain how their efforts are fair and ambitious. They will also not face any rigorous assessment process ahead of the Paris summit", said Chandra Bhushan, deputy director general of the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (CSE).

Bhushan, who attended the conference as observer, said, "No questions will be asked, and none answered."

The World Wildlife Federation (WWF) reacted in the same way saying, "Political expediency won over scientific urgency...Governments at the UN climate talks in Lima opted for a half-baked plan to cut emissions."

Samantha Smith, Leader, WWF Global Climate and Energy Initiative said "Governments crucially failed to agree on specific plans to cut emissions before 2020 that would have laid the ground for ending the fossil fuel era and accelerated the move toward renewable energy and increased energy efficiency. The science is clear that delaying action until 2020 will make it near impossible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, yet political expediency won over scientific urgency. Instead of leadership, they delivered a lackluster plan with little scientific relevancy."

Since the NGOs had attended the December 1-12 talks as 'observers' and kept close eyes on the process of the UN conference that extended 30 hours beyond schedule, their views and assessment cannot be ignored while preparing a roadmap for the global climate deal which is to come into force post-2020.

Though the developing countries including India expressed their satisfaction over clear mention of "Under Convention" and "CBDR" in the text, the NGOs pointed out how the caveat in the form of "different national circumstances" will spare the rich nations from fulfilling their responsibilities despite being big historical emitters.

The CSE director general Sunita Narain said, "The Lima agreement will further erode the differentiation between developed and the developing countries. The burden of tackling climate change will decisively shift to developing countries making their efforts towards poverty reduction and sustainable development difficult and expensive."

The Climate Action Network (CAN) - a global network of over 900 NGOs working to promote government and individual action to limit human-induced climate change - stated, "The Lima decision reaffirmed that governments are now on the spot to put the individual climate pledges on table in the first half of next year, that will form the foundations of the global climate agreement due in Paris next December, but some of the big issues that have been plaguing the talks for years were shirked and could cause headaches later on".

It said, "When it comes down to it, these talks shows governments are disconnected from their people who are worried about climate risks and want a just transition to boost our economies, deliver jobs and strengthen public health. Increasingly domestic issues, whether they are elections or decisions about major projects such as the KeystoneXL pipeline in the US and the Galilee basin in Australia, will be seen as a country's intention on climate change".

Referring to the financial aspect of the agreed text, the CAN South Asia director Sanjay Vashist said, "On finance, the momentum provided by pledges to the Green Climate Fund got lost. Ten billion USD in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - over four years - is too little....The Lima outcome did not provide further clarity about the pathway to the USD 100 billion a year promised to support developing countries to take climate action. Finance was essentially kicked down the road to Paris. As a result much of the untapped potential for climate action in developing countries stands in further jeopardy".

Besides GCF, the specifics of the 'loss and damage' also got lost in rush to get something out of the Lima talks at the last moment. Harjeet Singh, International Manager for Climate Change and Resilience at ActionAid International, said, " Poorer countries need financial support to help their people survive a crisis they did not cause. Unless rich countries commit to providing money for the long term, the talks can't head in the right direction"

Though the result of the talks has, somehow, kept the hope of Paris deal alive, it clearly signalled the bumpy ride ahead leading to the French capital late next year.

Even the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, while speaking on Lima outcome in New York on Wednesday, admitted that "there is still a great deal of work ahead on finance and other difficult issues" before the world arrives at a global deal in Paris late next hear.

He, however, expressed his confidence and said all governments, along with business and others, civil society, now agreed they must curb the growth in emissions.

"In my eight years as Secretary-General, that was the eight COP - Conference of Parties - meeting, and that was the most encouraging conference of parties I have attended", he said.

The Secretary General also enlisted the outcome in his remarks and appealed the governments to build a momentum towards Paris.

According to him, the outcome of the talks is as follow:

First, they agreed on a draft negotiating text to serve as the basis for the next round of negotiations beginning in February in Geneva.

Second, they provided clarity on the mitigation and other commitments to be included in the national plans of action or what we call INDC - this is an abbreviation of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions -- due in March.

Third, they built confidence and trust, most notably by capitalising the Green Climate Fund with an initial $10 billion.

Fourth, they advanced an action agenda designed to show the wealth of opportunities offered by the transition to a low-carbon pathway.

He said, "Taken together, these steps maintain the momentum towards Paris".