The Durban Platform calls for a post-2020 agreement “under the Convention” taking the form of “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force” and “applicable to all Parties.” It does not directly invoke the core UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” – the United States would agree to that only if the Durban Platform also noted that countries’
circumstances had evolved since the UNFCCC’s launch, a condition that developing countries would not accept. This ambiguous mandate is interpreted by developed
countries as precluding the strict binary differentiation between developed and developing countries reflected in the Kyoto Protocol, but offers no guidance on an alternative
approach to differentiating commitments.

In Doha, China, India and other developing countries sought again to explicitly introduce the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” into the Durban Platform framing. Although the United States said it welcomed a discussion of the principle’s application in a new agreement, it strenuously objected to its unqualified inclusion in the Doha text. Even the assertion in the final text that the ADP should be “guided by the principles of the Convention” drew a formal reservation from the United States arguing that it should not be
interpreted as a reframing of the Durban mandate.

Otherwise, the decision concluding the first year of the Durban Platform talks was strictly procedural. It calls for the ADP to “move to a more focused mode of work” in 2013 and lays out topics to be considered in the group’s two workstreams: one focused on the post-
2020 agreement, and a second aimed at raising ambition pre-2020. Looking further ahead, the COP said the ADP should consider “elements for a draft negotiating text”
for the new agreement no later than COP 20, “with a view to making available a negotiating text before May 2015.”