Shifting from an optimistic standpoint in August, South African Environmental Affairs Minister Buyelwa Sonjica on Tuesday stated that it appears to be "increasingly unlikely" that the conference of the parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the meeting of the parties of the Kyoto Protocol, would be able to adopt outcomes in Copenhagen in December that would result in the strengthening of the international climate change regime.

"It doesn't look optimistic to me - the parties are too far apart," added Environmental Affairs DG Joanne Yawitch, who reiterated that the Africa group has indicated that it would not accept a weak outcome at the Copenhagen conference, and that, if faced with a weak outcome, South Africa would urge that parties go back to the negotiating table.

South Africa wanted an ambitious and legally binding two-track outcome that is inclusive, fair and effective from Copenhagen. One track was that developed countries take on ambitious targets for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, and the second was that developed nations comply with their convention obligations on adaptation, finance and technology.

African nations felt that the Kyoto Protocol should not be scrapped, as was suggested by some countries, but should rather be amended. Establishing an entirely new protocol to be ratified by numerous parliaments around the world could take a very long time, and Africa, which was already feeling the effects of climate change, could not waste time in adapting for a changing climate.

"We will not be politically pressurised into accepting a weak outcome that re-interprets the convention and the Bali action plan to the disadvantage of developing countries. We would rather work from within the Africa group to seek a suspension of the proceedings and additional negotiating time, with a negotiating mandate that reflects the two-track approach. We cannot accept the demise of the Kyoto protocol - we cannot turn the clock back on more than a decade of progress in building the international climate regime," affirmed Sonjica.

She further explained that very few developed countries have provided political signals of their intention to show leadership by taking ambitious legally binding mitigation commitments, in line with science.

"So far, there have only been mitigation ‘pledges' with very low ambition."

Sonjica said that developed nations should show strong leadership, however, it was apparent that pressure was being put on developing nations to compromise.

"We hear heart warming talk from the US President, but we are not hearing much more than that. We are not getting strong indications from the countries that should be leading. It is about social justice and moral leadership, and we expect developed nations to do better," she emphasised.

Another sticking point was that the US was said to be insisting that its commitments would be taken in domestic law only, and not subject to international compliance.

Indeed, the US negotiating position was described as "the elephant in the room".

"This thing is not so much about [South Africa]. We will be caught in the crossfire of China encroaching on US space, and the US defending their space," said Sonjica, adding that it would have been better if these bilateral issues of development and competitiveness could have been dealt with elsewhere, and it was unfortunate that they were playing out in an arena, which had global environmental consequences.

The suggestion that developed countries would use trade measures to discriminate against products from developing countries that did not take on mitigation obligations, was also a worry for developing countries.

The issue of funding was also no nearer resolution, according to the South African negotiating delegation.

"There are few political signals from developed countries on their commitment to the scale of finance that is needed, and their intention to live up to the agreed financial and technology transfer obligations under the convention," said Sonjica.

There were concerns that the developed nations indicated that finance should be left to the markets, and that developing countries "must pay their way".

The idea that technology was simply a matter of cooperation on research, rather than real technology transfer and diffusion, and that adaptation was a national responsibility that should be funded domestically by developing countries, also did not sit well with the department.

Also viewed as unfavourable, was the suggestion by developed country partners that there should be a ‘common responsibility framework for mitigation' that re-interprets the principles and obligations of the convention, and that results in the demise of the Kyoto Protocol, and the loss of distinction, or firewall between the legally binding mitigation commitments of developed countries, and the supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries.