On the final day of the meeting, Ms. Figueres revealed to press that the participants were close to a decision to establish a new fund to oversee the long-term money raised for the specific climate needs of developing nations. But some analysts believe there are still obstacles in the way of final agreement.

The United States raised further preconditions for its financial support. According to David Waskow, climate change program director of Oxfam America and an observer at the Tianjin Meeting, the U.S. made transparency an issue, saying they would not negotiate unless the developing countries join their developed peers in embracing the framework for measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV) mitigation actions, and accepting international consultation and analysis (ICA).

On the opening day, Xie Zhenhua, vice chair of NDRC, told reporters that China accepts MRV supervision and ICA for its mitigation actions provided its national sovereignty is respected. But the developed nations must first of all translate their mitigation talk into deeds, and realize relevant financial and technical aid.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and other authorities at the Tianjin Meeting, Japan, U.S. and Germany dominate clean-energy technologies in the world, owning 80 percent of innovations in the field. But of these patents only limited numbers are warranted to the developing world.

A Yawning Gap on Key Issues

A focal point of the discussions at Tianjin was post-2012 reduction commitments by the developed nations. However, as Su Wei said at a press conference on October 9, some developed nations had kept silent on this issue during the six-day meeting. The divide between the developed and developing worlds remains wide.

The United States however put the blame on China. The Singapore newspaper Zaobao reported that Todd Stern, United States special envoy for climate change, in a speech at the University of Michigan had accused China of trying to step back on its reduction commitments in the latest round of international negotiations. Su Wei refuted this, describing the assertion as nothing more than an attempt to deflect world attention from the U.S.’ failure to significantly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States was sticking by the reduction target set last year – 17 percent off the 2005 level by the year 2020. But even this level failed to pass Congress this July, meaning that it may have to be achieved in extra-legislative form.

Mr. Waskow also noted that the Tianjin participants shared the worry of the U.S. walking away from the Protocol, replacing it with a new reduction regime.

Third World Network (TWN), an NGO, asserted that the developed nations’ attempts to abolish the Protocol are intended to force reduction commitments on emerging economies such as those of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China) and, furthermore, to retreat from their existing reduction commitments.

Alarmed by this, representatives of the G-77 plus China, small island countries and the least developed nations made it clear at Tianjin that negotiations must follow the dual-track approach under the Convention and the Protocol, not allowing any signatory party to substitute rules that do not differentiate the respective responsibilities of the developed and developing countries.

On the opening day an EU climate change official also expressed the desire for a package of balanced decisions made under the dual-track negotiation system. A report by the Hong Kong-based ifeng.com revealed that the EU has worked out a Cancun plan that reiterates its vow to peg global temperature increase at two degrees C. from pre-industrial times and other long-term climate goals.

Cancun Expectations Scaled Down

At a news conference given by the NDRC ahead of the Tianjin Meeting, Xie Zhenhua predicted that the Cancun Conference might be a transitional event, and hoped a legally binding deal could be reached in South Africa in 2011.

Compared with the heat generated in Copenhagen last year, national governments and NGOs alike were more realistic and level-headed at Tianjin. Copenhagen had been expected to deliver a legally binding treaty with stipulations on anti-climate-change measures covering reduction goals, funding and technical support but, to the disappointment of all, the outcome was a non-binding accord.

There was consensus among negotiators of EU countries, including Italy, Netherlands and Switzerland, that no concrete agreement would emerge from Cancun, but that progress might be made on issues of financial and technical assistance.

“So far no head of state has confirmed participation in Cancun, said Su Peijian, a manager with Oxfam Hong Kong. “They were all disappointed by the outcome at Copenhagen.” He saw nothing wrong with pinning hopes on the South Africa Summit, because “As things stand the signs are not encouraging for adoption of a legally binding document in Cancun. Because of the passiveness of the developed nations, the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) proposed the South Africa Summit to give negotiations another chance.”