(COURTESY OF WANG RUIBIN)

Delegates from nearly 190 countries gathered in the German city of Bonn for a new round of UN climate change talks on May 31—the first round since the Copenhagen summit last December. Negotiating parties with different opinions once more confronted each other, with tensions high during the whole process.

In order to further promote international cooperation on climate change, a dual-track negotiating mechanism was established as early as December 2005 at the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal.

On the one hand, the parties continued to discuss and decide on the post-2012 emissions reduction commitments for Annex I countries as outlined by the Kyoto Protocol. To this end, they set up the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties to draft the negotiating text.

On the other hand, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the parties launched a long-term dialogue process on cooperative action, with the purpose of urging developed countries to provide financial and technological support for developing countries.

Two years later, in December 2007, the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali, Indonesia, passed the Bali Action Plan and established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action.

But some developed countries attacked the dual-track mechanism repeatedly. They tried to start all over again outside the UN framework. For instance, former U.S. President George W. Bush's Major Economies Meeting on Climate Change and incumbent U.S. President Barack Obama's Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate were just such attempts.

Meanwhile, they tried to force the dual-track negotiation processes to become a single unit. Before the Copenhagen conference, there was a shocking interlude—the emergence of a so-called "Danish text."

The document, which was drafted by the United States, Britain and other developed countries in private, meant to bypass the two ad hoc working groups to be placed on the conference agenda and even put forward directly to the high-level segment of the conference.

After the conference, some countries even advocated replacing the texts handed in by the two ad hoc working groups with the Copenhagen Accord adopted at the conference to serve as the foundation of further negotiations.

The purpose of these actions was to force developing countries to undertake the same responsibilities as developed countries. They intended to impose binding emissions reduction responsibilities on developing countries, without considering their weaker economic strength and poor adaptation ability to climate change.

With these moves, developed countries attempted to avoid the responsibilities of further reducing emissions and providing financial support as well as technology transfers for developing countries, as decided by the Kyoto Protocol and other international treaties.

The dual-track mechanism is a basis for maintaining justice and fairness of climate change negotiations, and also a foundation for deepening international cooperation in this respect.

The dual-track mechanism is a natural outcome of the international negotiation process on climate change under the UN framework. In the 1970s, climate change issues entered the international political agenda. Since then, it has taken the world more than 20 years to reach the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol—milestones in this field.

Meanwhile, a series of rules and decision-making procedures were gradually formed. They aimed to urge all nations to turn goodwill into commitment and action. The dual-track negotiating mechanism is just one of them.

What's more, the dual-track negotiating mechanism is the embodiment of the basic principles established by international treaties such as the UNFCCC.

Principles including "common but differentiated responsibilities," "sustainable development" and "cost-effectiveness" serve the fundamental interests of the international community. They have become the core consensus as countries take collective action on climate change.

In addition, the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol and other international legal instruments constitute the legal basis for international climate negotiations. Designed based on their spirit, the dual-track negotiating mechanism is the most legitimate and should be respected and supported by all parties. Denying the mechanism is equal to denying the entirety of the climate change negotiations.

Without the mechanism, the international system relating to climate change, which is based on the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol, would become an empty shell. The achievements the whole world has made in the past decades would probably amount to nothing, developing countries' environments and development rights and benefits would have no guarantee.

Therefore, the dual-track negotiating mechanism under the UN framework is the main channel of international climate change negotiations. The consultations of main negotiating parties on platforms including the G20 Summit and the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, however, can play a complementary role.

At a working-level meeting in April, the two ad hoc working groups passed a series of work plans including the Organization and Methods of Work in 2010. And the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action brought forward a new negotiating text drafted by its chairwoman in mid-May. So far, although the negotiation process has encountered a lot of resistance, it has always run on the dual-track mechanism.

Future negotiations will continue to be based on this mechanism and implement the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." In this way, the parties can urge developed countries to undertake emissions reduction obligations in the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, and fulfill their commitment to providing financial and technological support to developing countries.

This is the only way for the international climate cooperation process to achieve positive outcomes.

The author is deputy director of the Department for Information and Contingencies Analysis at the China Institute of International Studies