Having been unable to find myself a seat due to the large number of people within the conference room, and having to rush out of it a few times thanks to the lag of plug points that facilitate the civil society connections to the outside world, I am able to put up a blog with the limited statements I was able to get a hearing of.

I make my daily entrance to the conference room, and thus commences my recital of what goes inside those UNFCCC discussions..

It’s Tuvalu taking the floor, which is a common occurrence, in many of these negotiations. It is a good thing unlike many states that stay mum at what is happening around them, some countries do take a stand and do voice their opinions. (hint hint!) The negotiator of Tuvalu went on to highlight that “once we establish the political commitment the technical issues will fall in place” and stated that “some parties see the outcomes of this process is contingent on the LCA process, we do not see that. We think it’s important that the Kyoto protocol continues. I would encourage us to consider how we are going to establish that political commitment this period. I think we have to elevate the political significance of our discussion. It is pointless to go into endless technical issues without political commitment.”

The speaker for the AOSIS group expressed that all left Cancun with a fundamental issue and that there is need to clarity. “It’s not possible to work on LULUCF rules…Once we have clarity on the second commitment period then the rest of the questions can be addressed…To get the technical issues to be resolved the political issues need to be resolved.” The negotiator also highlighted that the need for political clarity by June which would be a valuable focus for this session of discussions.

Switzerland in their turn highlighted the need to be committed to what was decided in Cancun and went on to state “we should not try to undo Cancun…This group should aim to complete the work on Kyoto”. The speaker continued “we have to understand what the numbers mean and we cannot agree to numbers without knowing what they are..We cannot look at the cancun agreement in isolation”

Marshall Islands in their expression stated that “no doubt that Cancun was a step forward but a very dangerous one with regards to emission..We need much more clarity..Once there is clarity then we can finalise rules” They also requested the possibility of enhancing the discussion with Q&A session.

The Ugandan negotiator for his part stated , “we will talk about the numbers for ages, I can assure you. I am convinced that we cannot progress in this process talking about taking a second commitment without us making a bold decision” and requested the others to “take a little bit of courage”. He also added when people “see us gathering here frequently more and more of those vulnerable people are dying and we are here saying that we need to decide rules!”

Egypt highlighted that two ingredients for successfully moving forward are clarity and sense of urgency and provided that they support the idea of a political process based on the documents tabled. Added that the outcome of this process should be adopted.

Saudi Arabia in their speech supported the statement of the G77 and mentioned that there is need for clarity as to the work here on Kyoto Protocol. Also added that if there is the political will that lot of things can be achieved. “The willingness to commit will help us move forward” and added that Saudi Arabia supports a “real” political willingness for giving clarity.

The speaker for the European Union stated “I have a feeling this debate we have had several times” but added that “there is always room for improvement to make things better” He questioned the parties “what’s the reason we are sitting here?” The EU provided that they “have the intention to continue with Kyoto and not to have a gap.” And also added that he does not think that the discussions were “going around in circles” He quoted a statement made earlier in the discussion “someone told that we have beaten those questions to death..Yes everyone has told what his or her opinion on those question is..But we have not found a compromise..I have been hearing the same questions from the new faces to which i have answered to the old faces…I think we need to find real compromises…What I would hope for during the last days of these sessions is to take these technical discussions forward and explain to the new comers what we have been doing over the years” and concluded that the EU “want to come to a conclusion by Durban”.

Venezuela stated “we think there is a way to deal with climate change and that is the Kyoto protocol. We wish to see all countries state loud and clear that they are committed to a second commitment period. Without a political decision we cannot move forward…this is otherwise a waste of time and resources of all the people of the countries who are paying for us to be here…We need to make a decision because otherwise it is because of you that we have failed.”

Bolivia speaking “we are not really addressing the real question..We cannot play hide and seek!” (I think this negotiator has a way of putting things into words. Some might hate him, I do not believe I am one of them) He further added “If we want to move ahead, let’s put all the numbers on the table…We need to clarify rules but we don’t want rules to turn into loopholes..Let’s come to an agreement where we want the strongest rules to achieve the 2 C margin” But I think the best statement of the day was “at the end of the day we cannot play around with nature”. He also stressed that “if there is no second commitment by Durban then what we are going to have is nothing”

Gambia in their speech stated “we cannot work on rules that would be used for another process” and India in a very brief and possibly a somewhat nervous statement expressed their support towards the statement of Brazil and emphasised the need to ensure no gap in the Kyoto Protocol’s commitment periods.

With those words from the South Asian State, my lap top shifts to non active mode. A possible reaction of the development of artificial intelligence?