It is understood that a plenary session on Friday will be the last chance to resolve the impasse that remained after negotiations ran late on Thursday without a breakthrough. Without an agreement over the definition of emissions at Paris, there may not be another chance until June. Visitors walk through ice blocks as part of the sculpture Ice Watch, by Danish artist Olafur Eliasson, as part of the Paris climate talks. Credit:Jacques Brinon Mr Turnbull drew applause from fellow leaders on Monday when he announced Australia would ratify the second stage of the Kyoto Protocol, a declaration that surprised some delegates since key rules that had implications for Australia were yet to be settled. A spokesman for Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who is attending the Paris summit, said on Friday that the government's position hasn't changed. "The Prime Minister's statement was clear and categorical that Australia will be ratifying. We will be ratifying," he said.



"Talks on technical matters are ongoing."



Summit hopes

Without a last-minute resolution, a failure of the negotiations on the pre-2020 rules may have implications for the climate summit. Deforestation is at the centre of an argument in Paris that could affect how Australia meets its emissions target. The conference aims to secure a credible post-2020 pathway for nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions to keep global warming to less than 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. Key developing nations agreed on a 2015 deadline for a new global agreement at the Durban gathering in 2011 in part because the European Union and Australia signalled they would make progress on ratifying the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol. It is understood that not delivering on this part of the Paris negotiations means the EU and Australia have broken their part of the 2011 deal.

As reported by Fairfax Media, Australia met resistance during the Paris summit to the inclusion of deforestation in the definition of emissions covered to 2020. Including deforestation allows Australia to meet pollution goals even as emissions from industrial and other sources rise. A postponement to June could pose a potential embarrassment for the Turnbull government after the PM on Monday told more than 150 world leaders Australia would ratify the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding treaty to cut emissions. The impact Should the last-ditch talks fail to unpick the knot, the Turnbull government would be left with the dilemma of whether to drop its ratification pledge or implement an agreement that could affect how Australia counts its emissions. By one estimate, the exclusion of deforestation changes would mean Australia's pre-2020 emissions will be 60-120 million tonnes higher than current trajectory.

As a guide, the government's $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund has spent almost half its money paying for 92 million tonnes of abatement in its two auctions so far. One delegate described how his team was being put under "enormous pressure" by Australian negotiators. The delegate also noted such talks are typically held by technical experts, but the Australian party had brought in extra lawyers to press acceptance of Australia's preferred definition of emissions that include land-use change. 'An accident' It's understood the problem for Australia stemmed from text added to the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, agreed by parties in the Qatari capital in 2012. The implication of the changes did not dawn on parties for some months afterwards. "At its heart, it looks like an accident," the negotiator said.

Accident or not, Australian governments have relied on variations of the "Australia clause" that allowed the country to take credit for slowing land clearing – particularly in Queensland and NSW. Instead of trending towards the national target of cutting 2000-levels emissions five per cent by 2020, the outcome should land use changes be excluded would be about an 11 per cent increase, analysts at the University of Melbourne say. Not so easy targets "I think it sounds like an admission that Australia might not meet its commitments of a 5 per cent (cut)," Larissa Waters, deputy Greens leader, said in Paris.



"If we haven't actually finalised what the definition [of emissions] is, how does the Minister [Mr Hunt] know that we can meet and beat our targets?" she said, referring to comments made repeatedly in recent weeks by the minister. The deforestation issue might yet become a factor for different reason. New data released last weekend by the Queensland government shows that in 2013-14 land clearing was back almost to the rate prior to the introduction on limits in 1999.

"That was the single reason why Australia could meet its Kyoto [stage] 1 commitments," Senator Waters said. The clearing in 2013-14 contributed 35 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, with just under 300,000 hectares of land cleared. "And that's only one year," Senator Waters said. Australia's bid to make sure deforestation is included in the definition of emissions, therefore, "could come back to bite Mr Hunt", she said. Fairfax Media is a partner of United Nations Foundation