Negotiators ended session around 2 am and went into group meetings. G77 members did not seem happy about new text, which UNFCCC  got on to website quite quickly (by 2 am). Adds very little and most seems like window dressing. For example, the GCF is setup with legal personality, but without any money. The Bigger Picture text calsl for both new Kyoto commitment period as well as start of negotiations on new treaty without preconditions by 2015, but doesn't really do much to move in that direction other than say the process should start (with a Working Group). And finally, the further commitment periods under the KP text does create a new commitment period, but there are no commitments listed and country are only invited to suggest some.

It is also somewhat troubling that although the texts were availabel at 21:40, 23:00, and 00:30 respectively, they were not made available until about 4 am and even then many did not have copies. This was another example of the UNFCCC failing to ensure transparency of the process.

Negotiators returned to the African Wattle room again around midnight to consider a new Chair's text which was not publicly distributed. Instead the UNFCCC website said this text would be distributed on Saturday morning. The site also states that there will be no COP or CMP meetings before 10 am on Saturday. Meantime several delegations are already leaving.

In a preliminary reaction to the text, a G77 advisor was that it did not significantly improve upon the earlier four pages of text that had been widely criticized. An AOSIS negotiator, and from State member of the G77, said the text is something that they can work with.

Two delegates from developing countries explained to me that India made "a very good statement" at the ministerial meeting explaining that climate change had to be combated while ensuring respect for sustainable development for all States. They got an ovation from other delegations for the statement.

Western media still reports China and India as the villain. At ICC most still see US & EU as the problem.

While redrafting text and reconsidering meaning of common but differentiated responsibilities (CbDR) the Chair might want to consider:

• GDP (per capita) of China $7,544
• GDP (per capita) of India $3,408
• GDP (per capita) of US $46,860
• GDP (per capita) average for Europe $30,388
• Percentage of emissions of CO² over past two hundred years by US are 30%, more than any other country and more than most other countries combined.
• Percentage of emissions of CO² over past two hundred years by China about 8.5%, more than any other country and more than most other countries combined.
• Percentage of emissions of CO² over past two hundred years by India less than 5%, more than any other country and more than most other countries combined
• Per capita CO² in 2008 for US 17.5 metric tons per person.
• Per capita CO² in 2008 for China 5.3 metric tons per person.
• Per capita CO² in 2008 for India 1.4 metric tons per person.

Just overheard a young European diplomat at the negotiations say: "I don't understand why they just can agree to be equally bound to cut emissions. They raise all these difficult things about development. I don't understand. Why do they have to keep causing trouble." Has this diplomat ever read the UNFCCC, likely not other wise she would know that article 2 requires action against climate change that respects the right to sustainable development. And this person is speaking for a government!

Ministerial meeting broke at 20:30. A Developing State negotiator says that "almost everyone spoke against the text. I think the chair was shocked." The text which "appeared to come from the EU suggestions," said a negotiator, was sent back to the Chair who was asked to come with a viable text by 22:00.   

At 20:20 the group of negotiators led by Bernaditas Muller (Philippines) working on the GCF came to the end of the text that they were now sending to the Ministerial level for consideration. While the text seemed to enjoy consensus, it was unclear that it would be agreed by consensus, which is necessary for it to go into force. Choices of modalities still remained unresolved. even as the delegates were celebrating with pictures, some were gathering to argue about the text and several delegates were stating conditions that were not compatible. Moreover, the main question, where would the money come from had been left largely unanswered. The UK for example said it was not sure where the money would come from. 

At about 19:30 China and India both spoke strongly against the text. An Indian delegate now says all developing countries are against the text and have asked EU to go away and re-draft the text to give it teeth...why is EU drafting text at all at a COP in Durban South Africa?

Quote from Financial Times, on Friday, 9 December 2011:

Karl Hood, Grenada’s foreign minister commenting on Chair's text based on EU proposal for a legal framework by 2015 that leads to a treaty by 2020: “It doesn’t become operational until after 2020 so we are looking at God knows when . . . what is a legal framework, I would like to know. My first instinct is to reject it of out of hand . . . is this a conference of parties or is this a corpse?”

Pablo Solon calls two proposals on the table worse than what EU offered, just what US wanted. Says proposals lead to empty Kyoto Protocol where only carbon markets mechanisms continue, but commitments are not there...only vague "legal framework" exists. Solon called for delegates to block the two decisions because otherwise, he said, "we will burn Africa."

At 6 pm Ministerial consultations started in African Room on the new Chair text that was based on the EU proposal of a new convention by 2020.

The African Group, Brazil, AOSIS and US are now allegedly agreeing to EU proposal in principle if there is a new treaty by 2015.

The new treaty would essentially replace the UNFCC and scrap the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

We thought we might see the death of the Kyoto Protocol...we might be watching the death of the UNFCCC!

Two proposals emerge:

1. KP without commitments (05:00).

2. LCA text of two preambular paragraphs and eight operative paragraphs that call for work on binding treaty for all to start in 2020 while essentially putting responsibility on markets to pay (or not to pay) for carbon markets (08:00).

Despite actions led by Greenpeace and Climate Justice activists, which Un security appears to be tolerating, the talks between States to save our planet's climate appear to be on the verge of collapse on the major issue of action to stop emissions at a level that is not dangerous to our atmosphere.

At 4:45 pm (local Durban time) States convene in small conference room with the Conference Chair to discuss moving forward on a roadmap or plan of action for a new commitment period. Mot delegates had expected to see a Chair's text based on the incremental progress that was made in meetings that lasted until 4 am this morning. Instead the Chair presented a completely new text and said that she wanted on 26 States to stay in the room to negotiate it. After several objections both to the text and procedure the Chair suspended the meeting for an hour to give States a cooling down period and time to better consider the text. 

One senior negotiator speaking on condition that what was said be quoted anonymously said the new text and process "is a disaster. We are moving backwards rapidly, this is a real disaster." 

Ambassador Silvia Merega, the G77 Chair also seemed concern with the situation as she huddled with colleagues, but refused to make a public statement.

Sitting outside the room, Mr. Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South, Centre and intergovernmental think-tank, said he did not know how the negotiations  were proceeding because everything was now taking place behind closed doors.

A senior Egyptian negotiator said that there seem to be a stalemate on matter that were already leal obligations but which some developing states are still trying to deny.

At 1 am in the morning a South African delegate says that they are considering proposing that delegations stay on a couple extra days to complete the task of negotiating the world atmospheric future. The Canadian government officials allegedly response by saying they can't change their tickets, indicating that they are perhaps the only governmental delegation to have bought nonchargeable tickets. One photographer who was busy snapping shots of dozing delegates and colleagues in the press speculated that perhaps the Canadian had forgot the COP was happening until very late and had to buy last-minute tickets.

As the clock strikes 3 am a Chinese delegate says that pressure is mounting on the US to agree to allow a new commitment period. He doesn't say that the US has said that its not going to join it no matter what.

States saying they are showing flexibility, but little evidence of this as negotiations continue behind doors with little apparent progress. What is clear is that the crucial question is what will be the next steps in the fight against climate change?

Brazil and China say they will accept a legally binding treaty after 2020. Both Brazil and China say they have meaningful targets for 2020 that are enshrined in their own law and policies. US does not have such targets.

Many bilateral meetings are taking place, including the following more interesting ones:

• South Africa-EU
• South Africa-Germany
• South Africa-USA
• South Africa-Russia
• Brazil-African Group
• Russia-Kazakhstan
• BASIC-G77
• US-Maldives
• EU-African Group
• EU-USA-Canada
• Brazil-USA
• Brazil-EU
• AOSIS-African Group
• ALBA-African Group

Maldives says that it will agree to binding legal targets today whether or not it is accompanied by financing. Challenges other developing countries threatening to allow developed countries off the hook on financing and sentencing the poor of the world to remain poor and most vulnerable to climate change.

 Modalities for Green Fund moving forward, but still few announcements of pledges. Germany..  The US claimed that they were were waiting for the fund to be setup before making contributions. 

Led by African, especially from host South Africa, government representatives, negotiations went on throughout the night as a handful of negotiators gather in a relatively small meeting room in one corner of the the ICC where the catering service obliged delegates by remaining open all night. A handful of press, junior diplomats, and NGOs waited outside the room's closed doors for a sign of progress as delegates emerged at irregular intervals. Most delegations seemed to be working their negotiators on shifts so that they were able to have at least some fresh negotiators in play all the time.

Ethiopian President Meles Zenawi made several strong statements in support of a new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. He said, "The doomsayers are out in full to prematurely declare the conference dead, but we cannot let this happen."

The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) came to Durban in a Caravan passing through African countries from East to West and North to South talking to people about what climate change is doing to Afrcians and what African leaders and others must do for their people. The Caravan was to intended to encourage the African hosts--South Africa--to agree to a deal that would protect the most vulnerable in Africa. So far (Wednesday) PACJA says it is disappointed in relation to it expectations and calls Inbada process just another form of green-room discussions (negotiations behind closed doors).

While developed countries seem content to defend the advantages that they acquired without considering the future, developing countries were exerting pressure to change the ways we live arguing as Argentinean Ambassador and the 130 nation plus G77 President Silvia Merega that within "a decade or so we need to change our way of life and our way of consumption." Developing countries sometimes emphasized their insensitivity with misleading propaganda. For example, Voice of America, in an apparent attempt to justify US resilience blocking an agreement to legally require States to cut emissions, claimed that "no African nations are part of the Kyoto Protocol." in fact all 54 African nations are part of the Kyoto Protocol and the US is the only major nation that is not. It is true that the only the most developed countries have legal obligations to cut their emissions under the Protocol, but that is because for about 200 years these countries have from their hugely disproportionate emissions. 

The South African Presidency of COP is trying to finalize the process of an agreement on at leaet some f the more than fifity issues confronting delegates though a consultatrive process called Indaba - a process of local gatherings of wise people who reflect a spirit of community. To undertake this a five issue based facilitators have been designated as the chart below indicates.

In reality the negotiations are just as opaque and exclusive as they have been in Cancun or Copenhagen. The South African Presidency even seems to be more openly hostile towards NGOs that are trying to influence the outcome of the apparently under-achieving State negotiations. This impression comes from the Presidency's constantly reminding NGOs that they are not negotiators. While the presidency admits that NGOs can and should influence negotiators through appropriate means they also have encourage or at least tolerated that States negotiate in private.

When asked why aren't States negotiating publicly the answers usually include (a) State need the privacy to reach agreements, (b) some States don't want to make their positions known in public, (c) State have a right to conduct negotiations in private, and (d) as States represent their people they don't have to discuss in public as that might be embarrassing, or (e) the public will not understand the technical aspects of the what the negotiator are doing.  Each of these excuses is an affront to participatory democracy. Each of these excuses offend the very nature of civil society and perpetuate an offensive concept of the State. Moreover, for twenty years this way of working has not worked. we have still not achieved an outcome that protects our common atmosphere. In fact sometimes we seem to move further away form it than the year before.

Civil society does not ask to be a negotiator at the table. It hope that governments will represent their people. Civil society, however, should hold governments to account for their actions to their own people and in international forums like the COP to the whole international community. The consequence of the obscure system of negotiations that currently operates is that civil society is serious handicapped in its ability to hold governments accountable because it does not know what they are actually saying at the negotiating table. Such a situation reflects disrespect for civil society and especially the NGOs who observe the UNFCCC processes often with as much if not more expertise as the delegates.

The UNFCCC needs a transparent  process whereby the representations of States--all of them--can be subjected to publicly scrutiny. Negotiators should not be allowed to hide their ignorance or mal-intentions behind a cloak of secrecy. Ensuring transparency by only holding open and public negotiations is likely the best way to achieve the result we need that can protect our planet. There is no legitimate reason why our governments have not acted to ensure this transparency to date.