Week on,a ‘balanced’ outcome looks difficult to achieve

US Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern thought it fit to make a slight qualification to that remark. “I am sure that there are a lot fewer than 194 meanings,” he said,smiling,clearly realising that his correction was little consolation to the negotiations caught in a hopeless situation at the end of the first week of meetings.

To be clear,the contention that there should be “balance” in the final outcome of climate talks is nothing new. The objective of the climate negotiations,often reiterated by countries,is to find a ‘comprehensive,global,legally-binding and balanced’ treaty.

However,never before has “balance” become as strong a buzzword in climate talks as in Cancun.

In each of their statements,every country has been stressing on the need to have a “balanced outcome” in Cancun. Unlike in Copenhagen,where everyone’s stated objective was to reach a “comprehensive and legally-binding” agreement,the countries clearly realise that this goal would have to be put off for at least one more year.

What is best expected out of Cancun is a ‘set of decisions’ that can be operationalised,and countries are keen to see that there is ‘balance’ in these decisions.

What is interesting,however,is the fact that there are widely different perceptions of what constitutes balance. For India and China — and a number of other developing countries — progress on deciding emission reduction targets for the rich and industrialized for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is an essential component of balanced outcome. Both India and China have often complained that while some headway is being made in areas technology or forestry,the rich countries are just not interested in finalizing the emission cut targets for Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012,and therefore,such an approach lacks balance.

“The main problem we are facing is that there is no balance in the talks as of now. In particular,we are concerned about the slow progress on (extending) Kyoto Protocol. In any balanced outcome,there has to be a continuation of Kyoto Protocol (for a period beyond 2012),” said Chinese negotiator Huang Kuikang.

On the other hand,for Japan,which has hogged all the limelight at this conference by declaring unequivocally that it would not agree for a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol,balance means the inclusion of major developing economies like China and India in the list of countries that need to take targeted emission cuts. Russia and Canada gladly agree with this definition of balance.

The United States,which brokered the Copenhagen Accord in the Danish capital last year,sees balance in continuing to move forward on the same route where every country decides voluntarily how much emission reductions to make and then abides by that.