Climate right for change to UN voting rules

THE UN climate conference in Durban has been asked to ditch consensus decision-making in favour of a two-thirds voting system.

THE UN climate conference in Durban has been asked to ditch consensus decision-making in favour of a two-thirds majority voting system to speed up the global response to climate change.

The plan is not new, but it has found an active sponsor in Mexico and leading climate change advocates such as former British climate change adviser Nicholas Stern.

Lord Stern told The Times that reaching a legally binding limit on emissions in the next few years would probably mean abandoning the present process, which requires all 192 UN member states to agree.

"It would be much better if we moved to a system where you had the ability to get an agreement on the basis of a big majority," Lord Stern said. "At some point being able to go forward without necessarily 100 per cent is likely to become necessary."

The first indication of whether any progress will be made at Durban is expected today with the release of the first draft document to be considered by politicians next week. Delegates claim progress is being made on many issues.

But there are still deep divisions over whether the Kyoto agreement should be extended into a second round and on the timetable for binding emissions targets that include developed and developing nations.

Lord Stern said he was not optimistic about progress.

"The day after the conference began on Monday, it was clear that there would be no legally binding deal, as the US said it would not sign up," he said.

Yesterday, the Australian government declined to comment on the proposed new voting system. Many non-government organisations are understood to support the plan, but agree it would be difficult to operate in practical terms.

According to Climate Advisers Network principal Hans Verolme, "the UN never trumps sovereignty . . . If a country does not agree it has various ways in which it can register its discontent and under international law that means you are off the hook."

And, even if the proposal was accepted, it would apply only to countries that chose to ratify it.