The stakes could not have been higher. On offer to countries were two very different ways to address climate change – possibly the greatest long-term threat that all countries now face. Either they stuck with the tried, tested but flawed Kyoto Protocol, a 20-year-old system of strict legal rules obliging the rich to reduce emissions, or they adopted a new system where everyone was brought into a single agreement and allowed to cut what they wanted.
Kyoto was imperfect but at least fair, because it admitted that the problems had been caused by industrialised countries in the past and respected the right of poorer countries to continue to develop. But it had been drawn up before China’s economic explosion, never got the USA aboard and clearly did not address today’s economic realities. On the other hand, the new system proposed by the USA, Canada and Japan would not be legally binding, paid no attention to equity or the past and could not guarantee to bring emissions down.
The war for the soul of the Kyoto Protocol has been waged over years because, while it concerned the environment, it was at heart a battleground between economic power blocks who used it to push their own interests and try to limit each others’ future industrial development. After all, with science showing there was only limited atmospheric space available for climate changing emissions, those countries that could secure the right to emit the most stood to grow the most.
The arguments came to a head in December in Durban, South Africa, where 194 countries met for the 17th annual Conference of the Parties (COP). A decision on Kyoto’s future had to be made and Europe had tried to square the circle by proposing a new ‘roadmap’ to continue Kyoto until another treaty is prepared. China and India loathed the idea because they did not know what the new treaty would contain and they feared the principles of Kyoto would be lost. Other developing countries were split by offers of bilateral aid and a genuine fear that climate change threatened their very existence.
After six days and three all-night ministerial sessions, years of negotiations came down to a single phrase. India had inserted the words “legal outcome”, at the last minute into the final negotiating text, a meaningless phrase which fatally weakened Europe’s insistence that the new treaty be legally binding. If Europe could not get this changed, it said, it would walk out and the talks would collapse.
Connie Hedegaard, EU climate change commissioner, went first, saying: “This is the prize sought by developing countries for many years – a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, the only treaty that commits rich countries to cut greenhouse gases. The EU is almost alone in offering this as other major developed economies have refused. But the price of the offer is for all nations to agree to be legally bound to a new agreement no later than 2020.”
There were loud cheers from 120 or more countries as she continued: “We need clarity.
We need to commit. The EU has shown patience for many years. We are almost ready to be alone in a second commitment period [to the Kyoto Protocol]. We don’t ask too much of the world that after this second period, all countries will be legally bound. Let’s try and have a protocol by 2018.”
But Indian environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan responded fiercely, also to cheers: “Am I to write a blank cheque and sign away the livelihoods and sustainability of 1.2 billion Indians, without even knowing what the EU ‘roadmap’ contains? I wonder if this is an agenda to shift the blame on to countries who are not responsible [for climate change]. Please do not hold us hostage. We will never give up the principle of equity.” And China’s chief negotiator Xie Zhenhua lambasted the EU in impassioned speech. “Who gives you the right to tell us what to do?” he asked.
With tempers rising and the talks just minutes from being abandoned, the chair, South African foreign minister Maite Nkoana Mashabane ordered China, India, the USA, Britain, France, Sweden, Gambia, Brazil and Poland to meet in a small group, or ‘huddle’. Surrounded by a crowd of nearly 100 delegates on the floor of the hall, they talked quietly among themselves to try to reach a new form of words acceptable to all. In the end, Brazil’s chief negotiator, lawyer Luis Figueron, came up with the compromise, proposing to substitute “an agreed outcome with legal force” for “legal outcome”. The word “force” was critical. It meant that whatever future agreement was finally agreed, it would be enforceable in law.
It also meant that the package of measures fought over in Durban and at previous COPs could go ahead. A forest deal will allow countries to eventually earn money if they protect their forests, and possibly soils and water. Carbon markets will be expanded. Rich countries have promised US$100 billion a year to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change.
Activists, NGOs and many analysts were agreed on only one point. The world is still on track to warm by a disastrous 3.5-4°C, they said, and the ambition shown by governments to reduce this was paltry. Conservationists liked the idea of carbon markets for forest protection, but critics said it would be disastrous for the 400 million people dependent on the forests.
But Durban is just the start of a long process. Every word and phrase will be fought over, and what eventually emerges may be very different from what is envisaged today. The big question is whether countries are really committed to avoiding climate change becoming even more dangerous.
