SPREP assisted Pacific Island Countries in their preparations for the Durban COP through a negotiations training programme conducted in Apia in
November and a pre-COP refresher meeting organized in Durban. These were sponsored by the UK Government through the Climate and Development Knowledge Network. SPREP also worked with the Caribbean Comunity Climate Change Centre to organize an Island Pavilion, as a special opportunity to showcase climate change work from the two regions.
Pacific Island Countries were well represented and well prepared for the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Durban. Various members participated actively in work areas of the Conference and some were lead negotiators for AOSIS on certain items like adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change (Cook Islands), and issues relating to national communications (Samoa) and developing country mitigation actions (RMI). This year there were 12,000 registered UNFCCC participants, making logistics difficult at times, and meeting rooms, facilities and spaces were often crowded when open to observers.
A key outcome was reaching agreement on a second commitment period for Kyoto Protocol (KP) for either of 5 
or 8 years. There were fears that the KP would die in Durban, and this decision secured its extension while a broader agreement is being negotiated. The explanation for the 5 or 8 year options is that the new agreement that comes into effect will determine how long the KP2 should last, and rests on technical quantification of GHG emission reductions that would span the KP2 extension and the introduction of a new agreement. There is also some uncertainty in how developed countries will undertake their most ambitious pledges, ensuring a busy negotiations year for 2012. To date, Canada, Japan and Russia have all announced that they will not likely engage in the KP, and the US has also made it clear that it will continue to stay outside of this agreement.
Tied closely to this agreement on the KP is the decision to launch a process to "develop a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties" to be negotiated by 2015 which will be effective no later than 2020. This is widely regarded as the most important outcome from Durban. Without it, there would be no road map for the future climate change 
regime. It was likened to the Berlin mandate of 1995 that led to the KP, which similarly saw AOSIS as a driving force. It is significant as it will cover all major emitters, including China, India and the United States (all of which are currently not included in the KP). This moves beyond the current divided responsibilities between developed and developing countries, while retaining the idea that all countries will determine their common, but differentiated responsibilities to achieve a reduction in GHG emissions. However, the legal interpretation of the final outcome of the new process is likely to become a contentious issue as negotiations proceed. The definition of 'legal force' is not clear. To some countries (i.e. Brazil) COP decision have legal force, while to others, i.e. AOSIS, the ideal outcome would be a ratifiable treaty. There is also an issue whether the relatively stringent rules of the KP can be enshrined so as to protect the integrity of the new instrument, and not be watered down to the lowest common denominator.
There was positive progress in many work areas under the Conference. For example on adaptation, the 
Adaptation Committee was established and its initial work programme was decided. This should assist SPREP with an improved focus on adaptation work in the UNFCCC, which to date has been fragmented. A designated SIDS seat was also secured on the Adaptation Committee. However, PICs did not attain all that they had requested, such as having a higher status for the Adaptation Committee in the UNFCCC hierarchy.
Related to this, there was positive progress on a work programme on loss and damage, which will look into various approaches such as insurance, to reach an agreement on how this can be applied to regions such as the Pacific in response to slow onset climate change impacts and extreme events.
SPREP will continue to support PICs in the negotiations process in 2012.
For more information, contact Mr Espen Ronneberg.
Images: Pacific Island Countries and Territories represented at the UNFCCC COP 17