Dawn in Durban

As the first ray of sunlight struck the Durban International Conference Center, the Durban Climate Change Conference finally ended in Durban on December 11. One of many conferences since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was founded nearly 20 years ago, many say the Durban conference may mark a new starting point.

The agreement signed in Durban represents the first time emerging countries like China was brought into a new international system under which they would have to accept equal legal status. 

For developed countries, the ultimate goal was to eliminate the "common but differentiated responsibility" provision under the Kyoto Protocol so that all countries would accept the same legal status under a legal framework. 

Yu Jie, director of climate policy for the Nature Conservancy, told Caixin that this process could be traced back to 2005. 

As early as in February 2005, when negotiations for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol needed to be started, some developed countries and non-governmental organizations used the "take appropriate action" provision of Article IX of the Kyoto Protocol to demand the launching of an agreement including developing countries, but it was met with strong resistance from developing countries. 

The 13th Conference of the Parties held in Bali at the end of 2007 determined what came to be known as the Bali Roadmap, which for the first time started a dual-track negotiations mechanism. One track was the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, while the other was long-term cooperative action under the protocol, which brought developing countries into binding negotiations through long-term cooperative action, demanding that they carry out "pledge and review." 

The Copenhagen conference at the end of 2009 moved the process forward by a large step. China made major concessions on the issue of transparency by agreeing to more frequent and rigorous international review. 

Last year's Cancun meeting further refined the auditing system, which changed from an audit report submitted every five years to one submitted every two years.

Finally, the breakthrough in "all countries accepting the same legal status under the legal framework" reached in Durban. Analysts said the Durban document had many similarities to the Berlin Mandate formulated at the first Conference of the Parties held in Berlin in 1995. Two years later, the Berlin Mandate produced the legally binding Kyoto Protocol. 

This is mainly because the European Union's plan led the Durban Conference. The EU proposed to continue the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, provided that a negotiations process for a legally binding new international agreement was launched at the Durban Conference, to be completed in 2015 and implemented no later than 2020.

The EU envisioned the second commitment period only as a transitional phase, after which a new international agreement would replace the Kyoto Protocol. But some core elements of the Kyoto Protocol could be retained, such as the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." For developing countries, continuing the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was crucial, because the mechanisms within the agreement were an outgrowth of those core elements.

After arriving in Durban, Xie Zhenhua, deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission and head of China's climate negotiating team, announced that continuing the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol was the number-one prerequisite of China accepting a new, legally binding agreement.

The EU exchanged the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in return for the limited support of the "EU Roadmap" among major emitting countries.   

However, one can see in Xie's statement after the conference that China's understanding of the legal form of the post-2020 agreement differs from the EU's by still calling it an "arrangement" as opposed to a legally binding agreement. This is because even if the new agreement begins from 2020, China is uncertain of when it will reach its emissions peak, and does not want to rush to agree.

The United States hinted earlier that it was only agreeing to start a process but that it could not say whether the process would necessarily lead to a legally binding international agreement. For the United States, it is important not to let the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" be stated straightforwardly in the text. Moreover, due to a lack of domestic legislative support, the United States will not be able to pass any legally binding international agreement for a long time. 

The EU was more flexible on the issue of "common but differentiated responsibilities," stating repeatedly that the new agreement did not require that developing countries and developed countries meet the same emissions reduction levels, but required they accept the same verification and compliance.

In an interview with Caixin, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said the final outcome is still unclear. It may be a protocol, it may be a legal text, or it may be another, weaker legal form. But no matter what the form, it should be legally binding.

However, with the Durban Conference just concluded, Canada announced that it was formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol does not stipulate any violation or penalty mechanism for counties willingly withdrawing from the treaty, nor does it include any accountability mechanisms for countries not meeting their first commitment period requirements. This sounded a warning for future negotiations.

It is unknown how Canada's withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol will impact future negotiations. But future negotiations will be more difficult and competing interests more intense. China should be prepared as soon as possible