A full successor to the Kyoto protocol is unlikely to be hammered out at Durban, but there are causes for optimism that much progress can still be achieved

So how do we save the Kyoto protocol? That’s the question everyone is asking in the run-up to the global climate conference in Durban, South Africa, which begins later this month. Negotiators will have to decide whether the world’s only global, legally binding treaty tackling climate change should be extended beyond the current 2008-2012 target commitment period.

An entirely new deal in Durban to get a new worldwide agreement in place is widely viewed as unlikely.

Of the 28 articles contained in Kyoto, only Annex B relating to emissions targets is time-limited. This leaves negotiators with two options: hammer out an entirely new treaty or use the current framework and press countries for increases in their current emissions target commitments.

Japan, Canada and the Russian Federation have made it clear that no new treaty is possible unless all major economies – including the US and China – are bound by the same legal terms. At present, the 1997 treaty requires carbon emission cuts from industrialised countries. The US signed but never ratified Kyoto, and developing countries, including large emitters such as China and India, are not legally mandated to lower their emissions.

The European Union, seeking a middle pathway, declared its openness to a second Kyoto commitment period with the condition that guarantees from other major carbon emitters are made by 2020 at the latest. Some hailed this a breakthrough proposal, but Stig Schjolset, head of EU carbon analysis at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, is far less optimistic.

There is simply no support for the US administration to commit to such targets at this stage, Schjolset says, adding: “The question Europe will face in Durban is ‘will it be willing to save Kyoto and commit to a second commitment period – even if they have no promises from the US and China?’”

Progress on details

Veteran climate talk observers say progress can still be made in the important matter of technology transfer, as well as with issues such as adaptation to climate change and monitoring emissions.

“There are a lot of pieces in the puzzle that can be dealt with, in theory, separately from the rest because they are of a technical nature,” says Bärd Lahn, an international climate policy adviser to Friends of the Earth Norway. He quickly adds that these “technical” issues require financial commitments and are also coloured by the talks’ highly charged political atmosphere.

For example, Redd, the UN programme to reduce forest carbon emissions, is now on shaky ground, with negotiators split on whether to access finance through the Green Climate Fund or direct markets. “It’s very much connected to Kyoto’s broader climate framework,” says Lahn.

The most likely outcome of Durban is some sort of agreement to keep the process going and allow the use of Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism and other flexible systems after 2012, says Bruno Pedrotti, a climate adviser at BusinessEurope.

“The chances that governments negotiating in Durban will reach an agreement on a binding framework post Kyoto appear extremely low,” Pedrotti says.

The paradox in all this is that a great deal of progress is being made in implementing domestic legislation, while at the international level there’s this intransigence.

Clean technology availability, new carbon markets and offset schemes for developing economies are but some of the important advances taking place in countries ranging from Germany and China to South Africa, the Philippines and Australia, says Samantha Smith, director of WWF’s international climate and energy initiative.

“The UN framework is clearly a longer-term solution, but it’s not the only thing out there,” Smith says. “There is a lot of new legislation and rule-making, and if you are a big multinational and are only looking at the UN process, you will quickly fall behind the curve.”