Download - Third World Network

Editor’s Note
MORE than 180 governments met recently in Durban,
South Africa in the midst of escalating extreme weather
events, massive social and economic damage suffered
mainly by developing countries just over the past year
alone, and new scientific warnings that the weak pledges
by developed countries on greenhouse gas emission cuts
will push global temperature rise beyond the critical 2
degrees Celsius.
The secretariat of the UN Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) hailed the ‘Durban
package’ outcome of the 28 November-11 December
conference as a ‘breakthrough’. Much of the euphoria
centred on four decisions: the second commitment
period for emission cuts by developed countries under
the Kyoto Protocol; the outcome of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
under the Convention (AWG-LCA); the Green Climate
Fund; and the establishment of a new ad hoc working
group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action.
The ‘Durban Platform’ is envisaged as a new
‘protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome
with legal force’ to be completed by 2015. But the terms
of reference for this new round of talks will only be
fought out in 2012, a first in international treaty
negotiations where the mandate is always set out with
great care.
The European Union in particular led the
developed countries in insisting that the Durban
conference adopt a roadmap for a new treaty on
mitigation that pulls in the United States (which is not a
Kyoto Protocol Party) and the large developing countries,
especially India and China. This was the quid pro quo
for the EU to accept a second commitment period under
the Kyoto Protocol.
India, represented by its Minister of Environment
and Forests Jayanthi Natarajan, was the most vocal on
the centrality of equity and common but differentiated
responsibilities (CBDR) to the climate regime. On the
other hand, developed countries have been systematically
reinterpreting CBDR and even rejecting their historical
responsibility for climate change, both of which
constitute a critical basis for the current climate treaties.
The US was vehemently against any reference to equity
in the Durban Platform decision. In the end, the pressure
on the developing countries that will be most affected
by the new treaty was so great that they compromised
on the Durban Platform decision.
Developing countries had unanimously wanted a
decision on a second commitment period of legally
binding emission cuts by developed countries under the
Kyoto Protocol to be the cornerstone of Durban. Not
just any commitment, but one that would involve deep
cuts as required by the climate crisis facing the planet.
What did the developing world get instead? A
decision on the second commitment period from 1
January 2013 (to avoid a gap after the first commitment
period expires next year), but with uncertainty as to
whether it will run up to 2017 or 2020. To add to the
uncertainty, Parties’ quantified targets for reducing
emissions will only be decided next year. Meanwhile
Japan and the Russian Federation have opted out of the
second commitment period, and Canada has officially
announced it will leave the Kyoto Protocol altogether.
Disagreement and frustration especially among
developing countries also haunted the third major
decision adopted – the outcome of the AWG-LCA,
which is a separate and distinct legal track from the Kyoto
Protocol work. This shifts more mitigation commitments
to developing countries even as numerous studies
confirm that they are now doing more than developed
countries in terms of mitigation efforts.
In the absence of agreement on many key issues
among the negotiating Parties, the chairs of the AWG-
LCA and the Kyoto Protocol working group pushed
their own draft decisions to the plenary sessions for
adoption, despite strong protests by many developing
countries.
The Green Climate Fund decision by comparison
seemed less turbulent, but its final workings also remain
to be seen. One thing was clear from Durban – the
negotiations on actual capitalisation of the Fund failed
to meet what is needed to tackle climate change.
In Durban the multilateral process suffered
another blow. The ‘management’ of the conference was
more sophisticated than in previous meetings in Cancun
and Copenhagen, but in essence it remained unchanged.
South Africa’s Foreign Minister Maite Nkoana-
Mashabane, as the President of the Conference of the
Parties, launched the ‘Indaba’ ministerial process in the
first week – where a smaller group of ministers and
senior negotiators got into closed-door sessions and the
real bargaining and pressure on countries like India took
place.
Tying the four main decisions into a package on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis made it politically more difficult
for countries to block a consensus. As a result, while
there were objections and protests from many
developing countries over the main drafts, as in previous
conferences, few, if any, had a mandate to block at the
end.
Durban has left the climate change talks in a state
of uncertainty. Although the Kyoto Protocol has been
resuscitated from what had seemed like certain death, it
will remain on life support, with no firm commitments
for emission reductions from rich countries for the
limited second commitment period. It is open knowledge
to anyone involved in the climate negotiations arena that
developed countries, supported by some developing
countries, will push for a realignment of burden-sharing
in the new round of talks on the Durban Platform that
will effectively replace the Kyoto Protocol and may even
see a rewriting of the UNFCCC’s basic principles.
Our cover story provides reports and analyses of
the Durban conference. While summarising the complex
technical issues raised, we have attempted to ensure that
the larger picture remains in focus. Hopefully, this will
enable readers to appreciate how critical the issue of
climate change is for the future of our planet.
– The Editors
Visit the Third World Network Internet website at:
www.twnside.org.sg
THIRD WORLD RESURGENCE No 255/256