W

hile countries are hostile to a European Union (EU) proposal for a new road map alongside the Kyoto Protocol, observers are calling on parties for flexibility toward a broader framework that aims at targets beyond the treaty.

The Nature Conservancy’s international climate policy director, Duncan Marsh, said during the 17th UN Climate Conference (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, that the Kyoto agreement would not solve the problem as it only obliges industrial countries to cut emissions, and those countries account for less than 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

“We need to build a much broader framework, one that includes all major emitters while still respecting their different capacities and responsibilities. We would like to see the Kyoto [Protocol] continue, but we need to build a common framework that works for all countries,” he said.

The EU countries initiated last week a new road map requiring all countries, regardless of whether rich or poor, to make a legally-binding commitment to reduce emissions, which would entail a new treaty to be agreed by 2015 and enacted by 2020.

China said it would accept the road map under certain conditions, including its classification as a developing country, a condition which the US has cited as its main objection to the Kyoto pact.

The US has consistently rejected the protocol as it does not include China, the world’s largest country. The US, whose economy is currently experiencing deep economic recession does not accept the argument that China, at the time of the treaty enactment in 1997, was still considered a developing country.

Other countries, including India and Indonesia, have also been skeptical to the proposal. India said the EU proposal was unclear with an obscure view of equity between industrialized and developing countries.

In the stalemate of the Kyoto treaty, Marsh said almost all countries are supportive of the EU continuing the treaty with a new scheme but has yet felt uneasy on the details that the new road map would offer.

“If [countries] converge on those details, we may well have both a second Kyoto protocol period and a commitment to negotiate a broader agreement, which in the long run will be more important,” he said.

The prospect of the collapse of the Cancun accords may push countries, even the US, to look for the best way toward establishing a legally-binding commitment to ensure the implementation of past agreements reached at climate conferences.

The Green Climate Fund, which has been mandated by the Cancun Agreements, may not make major strides toward becoming operational without a legally-binding commitment.

“The major countries all need to see some flexibility from other states on some items before they will be willing to compromise on other issues,” said Marsh.

“It will be difficult to deliver the fund or make further progress on operational issues, such as transparency, technology and adaptation, without some political consensus on the legal issues. I have a hard time envisioning the conference agreeing to the climate fund without a proper and balanced package,” said Elliot Diringer from the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions.

He said countries could also develop “incremental” strategies and reach agreement on the climate fund and other minor issues in order to build confidence and pave the way toward the main binding agreement.

Fred Boltz, senior vice-president for climate change with Conservation International, said with or without the Kyoto treaty, countries need to work together on the details of a timetable and deadline for a comprehensive global agreement.

“[The agreement needs to appear], not by 2020 but as soon as possible; 2015 at the latest. The year 2020 will be too late to hit the 2 degrees window,” he said.