Counting progress to Durban

Four days in. Three days to go. Two main topics of negotiations. And one important international forum with the responsibility to tackle global climate change.

After four days of negotiations at the Panama climate talks, there are signs of progress. Progress, which I hope, will pave the way for some global action at the UN Climate Summit in Durban, South Africa later this year.

With three days remaining, there is a distinct increase in the pace and urgency of these talks. Negotiators are rushing from meeting to meeting, informal chats are leading to formal pacts. Civil society groups like Oxfam are busy lobbying negotiators, reporting back and then planning their next move, always with the utmost tact.

On the two main topics of the negotiations – working out the future of a global climate deal and implementing the agreements from last year’s UN Climate Summit in Cancun – the talks are

awash with hope, emotion and frustration.

Looking to the future of a global deal, negotiators are talking at length around plans for the future of the Kyoto Protocol - the agreement established in 1997 to fight climate change. The European Union say they are willing to consider extending Kyoto post the conclusion of the first commitment period in 2012. Most African countries and the G77 (a group of almost 130 countries + China) passionately call for extending of the Kyoto Protocol into a second commitment period. New Zealand say they want to negotiate an extension but with certain conditions. Australia, which only signed up to Kyoto in 2007, says “the Kyoto Protocol alone cannot solve climate change” and stresses the need for a global agreement that includes all major emitters.

What’s more, media, civil society groups and other countries are showing interest in Australia and Norway’s recent proposal for a global agreement. The proposal outlines plans for global agreement starting in 2015 and would cover all major emitters.

It’s good to see a number of countries stepping up to the plate and willing to talk about a post 2012 global climate agreement. However, I think it is worrying that many of the wealthy developed nations who are the biggest per person polluters and the biggest historical emitters of carbon pollution are conditioning their actions on the actions of developing countries. While we need a global climate agreement it must be done in a way that recognises nation’s historical responsibility and differing capacities to act.

Australia and others are also speaking about the need to increase action to reduce emissions so as to limit warming to below the 2 degrees - the target referenced in both the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements. Though progress from countries on this has been slow. As one negotiator remarked “some countries are suggesting that they might go backwards and create more emissions”.

The other important element of the Cancun Agreements is the reaffirmed commitment to provide US$100 billion, per year by 2020, to assist developing countries deal with climate change. The US and some European countries are sadly refusing to talk about possible long-term sources of money. Civil society groups like Oxfam are calling for new innovative sources like an international levy on shipping emissions to contribute to the US$100 billion the world needs.

As Governments around the world are under continuing economic pressure, I think the idea of raising much needed finance, reducing emissions and assisting developing countries deal with climate change is a win-win.

I’m also blogging on our sister site, A climate for change (www.aclimateforchange.org). Check out my blogs and follow me on twitter, @clancymoore