On Saturday thousands of mainly young committed activists marched through central Durban in a Day of Action calling for negotiators to take action on climate change. The march ended where the Climate Talks are taking place inside the heavily guard, barbed-wired, and double-fenced International Conference Center.

Police estimated the crowd at between 5 and 10,000 people.

Inside the ICC the AOSIS drew attention to a proposal they had tabled that appeared to call for negotiating a new comprehensive treaty by 2013. It was not clear whether they thought this was actually and achievable feat or whether it indicated a backing down from their strong support for a new Kyoto commitment period.

Several states reiterated their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol's new commitment period with the African Group and the G77 standing strong on this issue. AOSIS also seemed to support new Kyoto commitment periods, but their insistence on agreeing on a long-term text by 2013 sent out contradictory signals. Only the US, Canada and Japan remain isolated in their unwillingness to accept a new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.

On financing, a draft text is out but there is still no clue as to where the money is going to come from. A proposal for a financial transaction tax was droped from the text and no alternative means of raising money added. The only in principal agreement reached was a levy on carbon emissions by ships.

The SBSTA adopted conclusions, among others, on reporting guidelines on annual inventories, development and transfer of technologies, and REDD+ (safeguards and modalities for measuring forest sink capacities).

The SBI almost ended as had been planned on Saturday evening it had to keep going late into the night with all the SBI text being left in brackets.

UNDP Director of Environmental Finance and Executive Coordinator of the UNDP Global Environment Facility, Mr. Yannick Glemarec, told a conference sponsored by Centre for International Sustainable Development Law Warburton Attorneys that was held at the University of Kwazulu-Natal Faculty of Law that most of the funding for mitigation and adaptation would have to come from private financing. When asked privately if this is UNDP's and GEF's official position he quickly backed tracked...but not in earshot of anyone else in the room and while is Warburton guide quickly pulled him away from the questionner.

Contribution from G77:

I am amazed at some voices that are already decrying Durban, as if their hope was for this process to fail. The feeling of negotiators and observers here in this building is far from that.   I truly believe that, even on the face of clear difficulties and challenges, and without minimizing the enormity of the task before us, progress is being made and we are still on a path that could lead us to a realistic success

At the end of the first week of negotiations in Durban today, countries struggle to make more progress before the closing of the Subsidiary Bodies in the afternoon.

Progress in the SBSTA context was possible, including a technical paper on water and climate change and a compilation of information on ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation. On the Nairobi Work Program on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, participants considered the Joint Workshop and its report could be a valuable tool with a view to further support the Adaptation Framework and its provisions.

Mama Konaté, the Mali-born negotiator and former SBSTA Chair who passed away suddenly a few weeks ago, was remembered fondly and with great respect by all members and Groups.

Progress under the SBI did not quite match the expectations for progress.  The Group of 77 and China is concerned that, according to projected data, the GHG emissions of Annex I Parties, excluding LULUCF, are expected to increase by 7.8% between 2010 and 2020. In this regard, we call on Annex I Parties to intensify their efforts and to improve further enhance the completeness, comparability, accuracy and level of detail of the reported information.

"We all know that when we get a benefit, we are supposed to pay a price. Wealthy countries cannot expect to pass the bill for their industrialization and development today to the poorest countries, and this is recognized by all countries and is embodied by the Convention in its principles. And that is at the root of the commitment made under the Convention by all developed countries to provide financing, transfer of technology and capacity building to make mitigation actions by developing countries possible. The members of the Group are already undertaking bold action, including with their own resources, but the available international cooperation for national mitigation and adaptation actions clearly needs to be scaled up", explained one of the lead negotiators of the Group. 

Concern was also expressed about the slow progress of the negotiations on financing, since resolve and progress in this front could be the key to a leap forward in mitigation actions by developing countries. For the time being, though, the discussion has not managed to appease the fears of an "empty shell" structure.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities also applies to any future reporting framework, which needs to reflect the enormous diversity in national circumstances between Parties. Enhanced reporting requires enhanced funding and technical resources. At a time when more and more responsibilities on reporting are placed on developing country Parties, we are faced with a difficult situation when national communications are subject to limited allocation of funding and other conditions.

The Chair of the G77 and China commented to civil society representatives, in an informal meeting: "I am amazed at some voices that are already decrying Durban, as if their hope was for this process to fail. The feeling of negotiators and observers here in this building is far from that. When citizens both in developing and developed countries hear that the talks in Durban are disappointing or that there are very low expectations for them, they have to be very aware of who it is that is talking.  I truly believe that, even on the face of clear difficulties and challenges, and without minimizing the enormity of the task before us, progress is being made and we are still on a path that could lead us to a realistic success." 

Durban, South Africa, 3 Dec 2011

------------------------------

As the first week of COP17 ends--although there will be meetings on Saturday and Sunday--there were a few steps forward and a few steps backwards. As a result some, but very little, progress was booked.

Notably the G77+China seem to be holding their ground by insisting on a new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time the European Union seems to be showing clearly that it is less interested in commitments under the Kyoto Protocol than it is in carbon trading (the CDMs and JIs). The stage is being set for a real showdown over Kyoto. The G77+China will likely have the  moral high ground and the overwhelming majority of States on its side. The USA and its few allies, however, have a significant amount of money and other things money can buy (including a hefty military and some commercial friends) in its corner. The game of dare may continue until one side is willing blink or concede. It would be a shame if it were the G77 or the Africans, but history does not provide good examples of it ending otherwise.

Bolivia, which has in the past been the stalwart of climate action based on the best available science and aimed at protecting the most vulnerable people in the world, seems to be limbing along without Ambassador Pablo Solon at the helm. Sometime the Bolivian delegates have even been negotiating the wrong text. Cuba, South Africa, Nigeria, Bangladesh, India and China seem to be the best prepared among the G77, but as usual they are outnumbered by the USA and the Europeans, the latter which although divided still seem to coordinate their logistics pretty well. Nicaragua's Minister Paul Kelly Oquist also also already here and

Another area on which mixed progress has been booked is finance. At the same time a battle is apparently heating up over the role of private finance. The US and EU are pushing for more and more private input into financing mechanisms. The G77+China have been pretty capable of regulating this urge.

One area where common progress seems to be made is on technology transfer. The chair of the SBI drafting grou even posited that they might be abel to finsh the text at this, their 35th meeting.

States expressed divergent views about whether a new climate treaty should be the focus of the COP activities or whether the Kyoto track should be preserved.

The overwhelming majority of countries pointed out that in Bali all States had agreed to pursue the dual path of extending the emissions reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol while at the same time working the text of a new document, whose legal form would depend on the substance of the text. These two tracks became known as the LCA and KP tracks and Working Groups were created to work on the decisions that were need to compleet each track.

It now seems like some, mainly developed, countries want to change he Bali agreement and focus only on the LCA track as leading to a new legally binding treaty. Perhaps the biggest legal problem with such a strategy is that it appears to violate the UNFCCC, especially as the terms of the new treaty that a few developed countries want appear to ignore the common but differentiated responsibilities of States, the principle of equity, and the principle that developed States must take the led in both cutting their emission and providing financing to developing countries.

The UNFCCC does allow for the possibility for States to become Annex 1 or Annex 2 States, but the basic criteria for becoming a Annex 1 or 2 country is not met by developing States like China and India despite their rapid rate of development. These States still lag far behind the per capita incomes of individuals in the US and Europe. To call on them to take on the same type of responsibilities as rich developed States--especially when these States gained most of their wealth by the over-exploitation of our common atmosphere for about two centuries--is to cement the discrimination against developing States and their people that is no longer acceptable in the contemporary world.

Until now the Africans, the G77 and the BASIC Group has stood strong and relatively well unified against the effort of the US and some of the EU States to undermine the KP track. Once again, however, the situation is one in which the rich and powerful seek to impose their will on the other 85% of the world population. The developed States are using a heavy hand with developing States behind the scenes. Nevertheless, in the end it is in the interests of each developing State that they find the courage to stand strong in opposition to the pressure from States that are rich and powerful today. Only if they do so, might they become the rich and powerful of the future, although hopefully with a greater concern for the common good.

The UNFCCC calls for developed states (Annex 1 Parties to the treaty) to provide new and additional financing to assist developing states in their mitigation and adaptation efforts. In Copenhagen and again in Cancun developed States refused to agree to more specific legally binding commitments to provide financing, but they did promise to provide 30 billion USD in new and additional funds by 2012. Once again it appears, however, that such a non-binding commitment cannot be trusted.

As a recent African Climate Policy Centre report indicated less than 2 billion USD of new and additional funds has actually been made available. Otherwise, developed States have merely reneged on their promise by shifting money around (so that it is not new and additional), dragging their feet or merely denying their responsibility.

At the same time little progress has been made on the new Green Climate Fund that is suppose to come up with 100 billion USD per year for mitigation and adaptation. Instead of coming up with the money, which would be the best encouragement possible for creating the modalities to keep and disburse it, both developed and developing States are bogged down in technicalities about who will hold the money and how it will be disbursed.

Ironically, the 100 billion USD may be as much as 900 billion USD short of the annual amount that will be needed in 2020, in part because we have failed to take adequate action.