CHAPTER III: THE EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE
3.2. Key steps of the development of the international climate change regime for
3.2.7. COP 17: The Durban platform for enhanced action
From 28 November – 11 December 2011, parties gathered in Durban, South Africa for the COP 17 with mixed expectations. Many countries felt that “operationalising” the Cancun Agreements was all that the Durban meetings could achieve.423 Some other countries however expected a balanced and interdependent package of decisions that could resolve the Kyoto Protocol issue, make negotiations move towards a new legally- binding treaty, and make the GCF operational.424 Korhola425 commented on that saying that the COP 17 was one of those meetings from which nothing special was initially expected, but surprisingly ended up yielding meaningful results.
http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/negotiating_groups/items/2714.php (Accessed: 20 July 2016).
420 Speaking on behalf of the Umbrella Group, Australia stressed the need for legally-binding commitments by all major economies with differentiation between developed and developing countries and called for COP decisions from Cancun outlining a way forward towards a legally-binding outcome.
It expressed flexibility concerning a single new protocol or a combination that involves the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol. It called for a progress on monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and international consultation and analysis (ICA). Japan issued a proposal for a single legally-binding instrument in the form of a new protocol. The EU requested clarifying, in Cancun, that the intention is to work towards a legally-binding outcome under the AWG-LCA and reiterated its willingness to commit to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol in the context of a comprehensive global outcome.
More details on opening statements available at: http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12488e.html. (Accessed:
20 July 2016).
421 Rajamani (d) (note 410 above; 138-140).
422 Ibid.
423 IISD (c) ‘Summary of the Durban Climate Change Conference: 28 November -11 December 2011’
(2011) 12 (534) Earth Negotiations Bulletin 2 at 29. Available at http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop17/enb (Accessed: 16 July 2016).
424 The green climate fund was established under the COP 16. See note 411 above for more details.
425 Korhola (note 21 above; 77).
3.2.7.2. Outcomes
Durban gave birth to a package of some 20 decisions,426 especially the following two which most were important in contributing towards global efforts for emissions reduction:
o All the countries would start negotiating on a new binding instrument for a global reduction of GHG emissions;
o The EU and some other industrialised countries’ acceptance of the extension of their Kyoto Protocol obligations for a second commitment period, spanning from 2013 to 2020. 427
a. Outcome related to negotiations for a universal binding instrument
The Durban decisions called for all major emitters – including developing countries such as China, Brazil, and India to set national emissions reduction targets that would be legally binding428 by 2015. Subsequent negotiations were to be conducted under a newly established subsidiary body, The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP).429 This has been a most significant decision, given that the new universal binding instrument became a major regime shift for developing countries as parties had adopted in December 2015 at Paris a universal Climate Change Agreement.430
426 Twenty decisions were made at COP17. Information about the COP17 decisions is available at http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/session/6294/php/view/decisions.php. (Accessed: 16 May 2016).
427 Korhola (note 21 above; 77); IISD (c) (note 182; 28).
428 B.B. Subhabrata ‘A Climate for Change? Critical Reflections on the Durban United Nations Climate Change Conference’ (2012) 33(12) Organization Studies 1761 at 1765.
429 ‘The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) is a subsidiary body that was established by decision 1/CP.17 in Durban 2011, pursuant to article 17 of the UNFCCC. Its mandate is to develop a protocol, or another legal instrument, or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that will be applicable to all Parties, which was to be completed no later than 2015 in order for it to be adopted at COP21 in Paris 2015, and that will come into effect and be implemented from 2020.’ Information available at: http://unfccc.int/bodies/body/6645.php. (Accessed: 20 May 2016).
430 For details on the 2015 Paris Agreement, see chapter five below; IISD (c) (note 182; 28).
b. Outcome r elated to the Kyoto Protocol extension
The EU agreed to commit itself for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
The decision was a proof about the inclusion of all developing countries in a post Kyoto emissions reduction binding regime. The inclusion of all major emitters from developing countries was a prerequisite imposed by the EU before its acceptance of any new commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.431 The inclusion of developing countries, especially China, India and Brazil for a legally binding emission scheme was equally meaningful for the USA, for as long as, the country claimed its meaningful participation in the global emissions reduction efforts, even if as said above, the USA no longer claimed the same position in COP 17.432
EU leaders however described the Durban outcome in many ways. It was described as a historic achievement, a watershed, a moment surpassing the success of COP1 in 1995 and the meeting that led to the creation of the Kyoto Protocol two years later.433 Environmental civil society actors were, however, critical, qualifying Durban outcomes to be a flaw434 because of the lack of binding emissions cuts, in contradiction to the statutory mandate of any COP meeting.435 Their overall claim was that the platform did not advance the world any further in solving the climate change challenge:
“Disastrous and profoundly distressing, Durban summit was nothing more than smoke and mirrors – an illusion of ambition with no real targets or time lines’,436 ‘A compromise which saves the climate talks but endangers people living in poverty’,437
‘Durban Platform can only be described as a major disappointment”, said Charveriat.438
431 See section 3.1.4 above on the Bali conference.
432 See section 3.1.3.1 above on the USA emissions mitigation position.
433 D. Keating ‘A climate deal against the odds’ (December 2011) European Voice at 15. Available at:
www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/a-climate-deal-against-the-odds-/72961.aspx (Accessed: 2 May 2016).
434 The green groups especially were the authors of the critics. Green Groups refer to Coalitions of environmental organisations for the defence of the Environment. See for example the green group organisations in the State of Missouri/USA. Available at: http://moenvironment.org/get-involved/green- groups-in-missouri (Accessed: 15 January 2016).
435 Subhabrata (note 428 above; 1765).
436 Statement from Mr. Mohamed Adow, a representative of the NGO Christian Aid at that time. See Subhabrata (note 428 above; 1770).
437 Ibid.
438 Statement from Celine Charveriat, Director of advocacy for Oxfam at that time. See Subhabrata (note 428 above; 1770).
It is against such a context of diverging opinions about COP17 that countries parties to the UNFCCC moved forward to the next round of negotiations which was the COP18. 439