Tensions are rising in Durban, as negotiators scurry to find a workable solution for their ministers to work out when they arrive next week. Two problems seem intractable – the future of Kyoto and the plan for a new roadmap for a binding treaty.

The tensions are greatest over the future of Kyoto, and are threatening to paralyse the talks, says Norton Rose. While developed countries such as Canada, Japan and Russia are refusing to countenance a second commitment period, the African group has insisted that it will not allow African soil to be the graveyard of the Kyoto Protocol.

Norton Rose wrote: In the face of such apparent paralysis, and with the EU’s roadmap not at this stage appearing to gain traction, it seems unlikely that much progress will be made on big picture political issues at Durban. Perhaps most of those will be once again rolled over to next year’s COP18 in Qatar.”

On the plus side, Norton Rose noted that emerging economies had formally registered and been actively taking positions under the moniker of the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) group. This, said Norton Rose, is a marked departure from past years and may signal a willingness of China and the emerging economies to take on greater commitments than they have in the past.

The subtleties

The Climate Institute’s Erwin Jackson, a veteran of these negotiations and an astute observers of its subtleties, also notes the rising levels of anxiety as the uncertainty around the legal nature of the future climate change agreement permeates discussions.

“While countries continue to act domestically, there is ongoing debate around the legal nature of international climate agreements,” he writes. “The spectrum of this legal form extends from a loose 'pledge and review' agreement between nations where their commitments and actions, or pledges, are enshrined under a loose international legal framework, to a legally binding treaty with agreed common frameworks to ensure countries are accountable internationally.”

He notes that a legally binding agreement in the short term may not be beneficial, as it could discourage countries from holding to the targets pledged in Cancun. “If, in the development of the Cancun Agreements, countries had demanded that all national commitments be captured in a treaty it is unlikely that USA and major emitting developing countries would have inscribed their targets internationally. The overall result would have been a significantly weaker global outcome,” he says. And, he notes, a legally binding agreement is also not a precondition for countries increasing their domestic actions.

“Progress can be made at the Durban even if the issue of the legal form of the agreement is not resolved. Policy progress on issues like financing low-carbon development and adaptation, the refinement of accounting rules for land sector emissions and progress on reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries are important with or without treaty commitments and will still reflect ongoing international momentum.”

Fossils for Poland and Canada

Canada picked up another fossil of the day award, but only second prize this time, for failing to understand the fundamental principal of “common but differentiated responsibility” which has become a central pillar in global climate negotiations. Its accident prone environment minister Kent can expect a hostile reception in Durban

First prize, however, went to Poland, for its advocacy of coal during its presidency of the EU, and its apparent undermining of EU calls for tighter reduction targets. “Promoting the dirtiest of fossil fuels at the very same time as the crucial talks in Durban are getting underway seems to be a joke both for EU diplomacy as well as the global effort to stay below 2 degrees,” the award givers noted.