A Look at the Upcoming Climate Negotiations in Durban, South Africa

With the Kyoto Protocol, the current UN agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, set to expire in 2012, prospects for a new international climate framework remain unclear. Delegates will meet in Durban, South Africa from November 28 to December 9, 2011 to negotiate future international action on climate change. While the past two meetings in Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun (2010) have advanced climate funding for developing countries, this year will be more contentious due to fears that the Kyoto Protocol will expire without an extension or an adequate replacement. In addition, the Durban climate talks will have to resolve other, more fundamental issues as well.

In 2010, the Cancun summit established the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to help developing countries pay for climate change mitigation programs. The GCF's goals were $30 billion for 2010-2012 and $100 billion annually by 2020, however it only contains $12 billion thus far. The GCF handles the funds and is charged with its distribution, but it provides no mechanism for actually raising the money. The fund is intended to be finalized by the Durban talks in 2011. There also exists a need for standardized procedures on measurement, reporting and verification of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a more defined international consensus on how to implement such procedures. These issues, along with the formation of new climate technology centers, must be addressed in Durban.

The United States will not support a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol in its current form, according to Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change. Mr. Stern said that the United States would not support any proposal that provides “escape hatches” for certain countries, and implied that developing countries should be included in climate obligations. His statement stems from the omission of China, India and Brazil from the 1992 parent agreement which formed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) due to their status as “developing” countries. Since the formation of the UNFCCC, these countries have developed into rapidly emerging economies and significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. A global scheme is unlikely to be effective without their inclusion. Mr. Stern has been participating in international talks recently on whether to form a single, more unified global scheme, or to form yet another scheme that could complement an extension of the Kyoto Protocol.

However, “I don’t believe that will happen. I don’t see China or India doing what we need them to do.” Jonathan Pershing, Deputy Special Envoy on Climate Change, said in January of this year. “Very difficult issues remain, concerning what happens with the Kyoto Protocol. This could drive continued focus to have a legal treaty as soon as possible. We don’t oppose a legal treaty, but we believe we have enough in place to keep moving toward a treaty years from now,” Mr. Stern added .

For stakeholders who expect a new binding commitment period after Kyoto, the fate of the climate talks may lie with the European Union, who, unlike the United States, has ratified the current Kyoto Protocol. The European Union has recently called for a framework that leads to a legally binding agreement on emissions, but such an outcome is uncertain. "Of the major players in the Kyoto Protocol, my sense is that the EU is the only one still considering signing up in some fashion to a second commitment period,” Mr. Stern said . “Japan is clearly not, Russia is not, Canada is not and Australia appears unlikely.”

Exacerbating the problem is the increasingly fractious nature of the debate. India, for example, has called for an extension of the Kyoto Protocol but refuses to sign any agreement which further imposes legally binding restrictions, citing that India has already done “far more than developed countries” to reduce carbon emissions. India has also rebuffed attempts at imposing an emissions verification scheme and is instead pushing for relaxed restrictions on intellectual property rights for climate mitigation and adaptation technologies, equitable access to sustainable development practices, and unilateral trade measures. India submitted a proposal to the UN in June and these issues have now been added to the agenda in Durban.

Australia and Norway have submitted another proposal to the UN , suggesting that Durban be used to devise a framework leading up to 2015 wherein a binding agreement can be achieved. They say it is a more realistic goal because countries like Australia, China and Korea will have domestic emissions trading schemes which will make it easier to achieve an international agreement.

Island countries are much more concerned with adaptation to climate change, according to Emele Duituturaga, executive director of the Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organizations. "Mitigation is important but for us in the Pacific, there is very little else we can do to reduce gas emissions,” he said . Meanwhile, others, such as South African Ambassador NJ Mxakato-Diseko, stated that a failure at Durban is not an option , and that it will result in a “collapse of the system.”

Mr. Stern believes that Durban will be a success if negotiators can get the Global Green Fund off the ground for developing countries, and if they can establish the new climate technology centers and agree upon standards for emissions reductions measurement, reporting and verification.