As COP17 heads into its last four days civil society is increasingly sounding the alarm that unless fast action is taken this generation of negotiators might be remembered as the representatives that lost the planet for future generations.

On Tuesday morning many delegations were still trying to clarify Chinas apparent commitment to a legally binding emission commitment. The US and Canada, however, reiterated their opposition to any legally binding commitments. The Africans, Asians, LDCs, BASIC and G77+China all called these 'naysayers'' positions unsustainable and at least 'immoral', if not illegal.

On Monday the AWG-KP Chair had set out several alternatives. The first option would be the adoption of a second commitment period by amending Annex B. This option was supported by the overwhelming majority of countries and would undoubtedly be adopted in any democratic decision making process. In the KP, however, just one State can block consensus.

Option two was a variation of the first where by the COP would adopt a decision extending the current Kyoto commitment period and expanding it where voluntary pledges were forthcoming, while at the same time working towards a new commitment period within a year or two. This would ensure there is no gap, but also that there are no adequate commitments to keep global warming below about a 4 degree global mark. This could be a deadly alternative for many of the most vulnerable people in the world. 

The third option was a decision by the CMP (the Conference of the Parties meeting as the Conference of the Parties under the Kyoto Protocol), but without an amendment to the Protocol itself. According to the draft Rules of Procedure that are being applied such a decision would likely not be legally binding on the Parties, but merely a recommendation. Again, this could be a deadly alternative.

The fourth option is a collection of unilateral declarations by parties. In fact this is what is happening now and what both the Copenhagen and Cancun outcomes called for. Again, however, with even more certainty given the last two years of practice, we know that this will be inadequate to save the lives of millions of people.

Text emerged on Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objectives (QELROs) and on LULUCF, but neither seemed to set the ambitious targets that are needed to keep anthropogenic gases at a level that is not dangerous to the atmosphere. Several developing States made it clear that they would likely not participate in CDMs if a new commitment period for emission reductions by developed countries was not agreed.

In the AWG-LCA the chair reported that some progress had been made. The current text  that was released on Friday seemed to be far going, at least in the Shared vision, that it included provisions recognizing historical responsibility. Again, however, similar to the KP-track there was no mechanism being considered to ensure ambitious emissions limitations by States. Instead, a system of vague non-legally binding commitments or a system of equal commitments for developed and developing countries was being was being discussed despite the fact that this would seem to be inconsistent with the most basic principles of the UNFCCC.

The chair of the AWG-LCA also reported that progress has been made on several draft decisions. It is, however, hard to see anything but the most vague contours of a treaty emerging from these ad hoc decisions. 

Outside the COP space, South African police were busy arresting demonstrators for any action that expresses concern for our planet outside the increasingly restrictive South African laws on freedom of expression. Three Greenpeace activists were rounded up and deported for trying to unroll a banner on a downtown Durban building. Somewhat hypocritically not one negotiator has been arrested for letting our planet be destroyed.

Any one who has done business in African will appreciate the relaxed manner by which Africans usually keep cool no matter how great the urgency or how stressful the pressure. The climate talks are no different.

While many Europeans and American delegates rush around as if something momentous is about to happen at almost every hour of the day and many Asians delegates work patiently from and until the early hours of the morning as if they were making long-term plans to construct a whole new planet, many African delegates seem relaxed.

American, Japanese and Canadian delegates twist and cower in their seats as they try to explain why they don't want new commitments period under the Kyoto in violation of the Kyoto Protocol for most and arguably in violation of undertakings in the UNFCCC for the other, while they somewhat illogically do want a new legally binding treaty.

The African delegates who are leading the work of the LDCs and who are often the de facto leaders of the G77+China, and whose leading country--South Africa--is hosting COP17, calmly speak about how currently non-legally binding emission cut commitments and non-legally binding commitments on financing will very likely kill hundreds of million of Africans by the end of very century in which we are living. 

The African composure must strike any observer (and there are many of them) as ironic and draw upon their inner most feelings of compassion. 

These are the very people, who in aggregate, will suffer the most (bar none) because of the failure of the international community to take adequate action on mitigation and their own lack of capacity to undertake adequate adaptation. These are the people who together have contributed the least to climate change. And perhaps most importantly, these are the people whose traditions of community, cooperation, sharing, and respect for nature, and even often through their submissions to the COP have shown us the most adequate manner of dealing with climate change.

It is perhaps an irony of the world we live in that Africans are being punished the most by climate change. It is perhaps a sad condemnation of our international processes that the powerful and wealthy governments of the world can sit in Africa, among Africans, and negotiate with such resilience such inadequate action, and still be treated with such respect by the their African hosts and their neighbors. But if the Africans have reminded us of anything at this COP, it is that it does not have to be this way. There is an alternative. Moreover, they have shown in their hospitality, their courtesy, their pride, and their care, that the alternative does not have to be based on greed or selfishness or on profit-driven market mechanisms. It can also be based on community, sharing and working together...or as the Africans say 'ubuntu'.

The second and last Monday saw a number of smoke screens being thrown up by Western countries in what looked a a little a pre-planning for a failure.

An EU delegate only willing to speak on condition of not being quoted said that an agreement on anything important was far away, although the delegate welcomed that some small progress was being made. Delegates from several African States intimidated appreciation for the EU position of agreeing to a new Kyoto commitment period without other conditions. At a level of EU cuts of 30% of the African delegates 

The EU held and evening reception in which they congratulated themselves, although no one leaving the reception was quite able to explain why. "We are trying," was the best answer coming not from a negotiator but his partner who did not seem to be directly involved in the negotiations.

Earlier in the day LDC Coordinator Mr. Pa Ousman Jarju from The Gambia spoke about the LDCs hope that at least financing and new Kyoto commitment period would be agreed. He also called the agreement on the way forward on Technology Transfer and Capacity Building "something of a success." The LDCs he said were calling for adoption of the Transitional Committee's report so that the GCF could get off the ground, but he was skeptical of the financing promises that have not yet been met. when asked if the G77 would stay united, he only replied "that it is in the interest of the G77 to stay together. 

The situation on the ground at COP17 was not even this 'optimistic'. Argentinian Ambassador Jorge Arguello, President of the G77 and China decided not to even make the trip to Durban because he had just been named Argentina's Ambassador to the United States. While his Deputy Silvia Merega, a Director-General with the rank of Ambassador in the Foreign Ministry  had already been functioning in the post de facto during the first week, the G77's President's absence certainly did not send a sign that the current unity would continue.

The chief Bolivian negotiator Mr. Rene Orellana, who had heavily criticized the developed countries at the ALBA press conference, reiterated his concern in an interview, that an equitable "whole package" that is neede to protect the climae is a long way off. He also warned that the developed countries putting their faith in markets was really misplaced. "Markets are in crisis now," he said. "Markets are nto a very good source of finance. They are not adequate," he said responding to the UNDP representative's statement a day earlier that most of the mitigation and adaptation finance should come from private sources. "That's a pity," Orellana said, "It is just not true." 

The World Bank also teamed up with Italy to make the best contribution they thought possible: giving out awards for picture about climate change. There was little evidence that either the developed State Party or the developed States Banker really understood what the pictures were about and neither volunteered to do anything about the adverse impacts of climate change. Indeed for the World Bank that would have been difficult as they just completed one of their most successful years of financing climate unfriendly coal projects. The World Bank is trying to make themselves look better, as the high-tech media extravaganza seemed to indicate, while vying for control of more money as the Banker to the new Green Climate Fund. At the same time, Italy has already announced that it will renege on its commitments to the new GCF or the portion of the fast-start funding that it promised to provide.

The heads of five ALBA delegations bashed the USA and other developing countries for making promises about finance that they never intended to meet.

Nicaraguan Minister for National Policies Paul Herbert Oquist Kelly lambasted the US going through a list of promises that were made and not honored.

Sunday was an 'off day' for the negotiators, but not for civil society. The Peoples' Space at Kwazulu Natal University hosted one of its busiest days of events with some NGOs hold day-long meetings to strategize for the last week of COP17.

CAN was one of those organization who discussed from 10 am to 8 pm and Pablo Solon spoke on Climate Justice at an eveing event. The Kwazulu-Natal University Law Faculty also hosted the second and final day of its corporate-sponsored look a international climate change law for the global South considering the topics of teaching ICCL, providing legal support to small States delegations, REDD readiness, and INvestment opportunities (for the North in the South). 

Around the Hilton Hotel where the senior negotiators were staying all the massage and beatuty treatment slots were booked on Sunday. A few negtiators were seen huddled with colleagues in the hotel's reception, but even more were seen at the local market. Some even made their way out to the Peoples' Space.

Despite the fact that the SBI and SBSTA ended their work with decsiions to keep working and so much texts in brackets that peopel talked about brackets not text, it will be a real challneged for States to agree within the next 5 dasy to new Kyoto commitment periods, but there si still hoep in the air.

ISMUN, WARN, International-Lawyers.Org, and Nord-Sud XXI announced a side-event on State Responsibility, Human Rights and Climate Change to be hled at 10 am on Wednesday, 7 December 2011 inj room SH17 of the Shepstone building at the Peoples' Space (Howard College) that will look at how States might be held responsible for violating international law becaue of their inaction or the the consequences thereof.