Durban: What’s Coming??

• As Durban quickly approaches, it is of great importance to gauge the expectations going into the conference, so that following the conference, its “success” can be defined. The three major issues that Spence argues need to be addressed include:

“1) agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol (under which developed countries would take on legally-binding commitments post-2012); 2)progress on a broader, comprehensive agreement that includes all major emitters; and 3)progress in operationalizing new institutions such as the Technology Mechanism and Green Climate Fund.”

Obviously, the degree of success that each of these goals can be achieved at Durban differs. Yet, overall the slightly pessimistic view of any “success” occurring is “fair” by Spence.

The second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol being signed on by the first set of nations he deems as “poor.” One is left wondering what positive steps will occur in Durban??? The Kyoto Protocol has acted as the largest binding agreement in regards to target emissions thus far in international negotiations; if KP-CP2 does not occur, what will be the model for emissions from 2012 onwards?? These unanswered questions both frighten and excite one to see the outcome of Durban.

It is this forward looking perspective, that makes reading Spences’ early 2010 report on post-Cancùn, all the more interesting. It appears as if the perspective looking towards climate negotiations as well as looking back on them, demonstrates the “roller-coaster” of pessimism and optimism around these international negotiations.

Post-Cancùn, Spence expresses hope for the future successful agreement on what he dubs the smaller “wins.” This includes REDD+ policy and the “Green Fund,” to help developing countries financially adapt to more efficient technologies with the help of developed ones. Looking towards Durban, knowing that REDD+ is still on the table as a small “win” possibility, is heartening.

Lastly, the scope of what the negotiations bring together both in sheer number of policy proposals, sources of agreement/disagreement, and number of countries, is being questioned as a suitable format for implementing real change in the future. Of course, knowing the outcomes of previous conferences, other critics have stated the similar point. In regards to this meeting of Durban, especially at the close of the first KP CP, the small “wins” may “cut it” in some areas (such as REDD+) and not in other areas (binding KP CP-2). Only time will tell. What we do know is that this negotiation is important for both preserving this meeting of parties and for the KP—“Success” can not be perfectly defined yet.