WORLD leaders overcame bitter wrangling yesterday to finally reach a deal on a "road map" to avert climate change catastrophe.
But the success in Bali was tempered by environmental campaigners who said it lacked detail.
Following tense marathon talks, delegates from more than 180 countries set the agenda for an agreement to negotiate global emissions targets in the next t
wo years.
The compromise deal followed emotionally-charged scenes and a dramatic 11th hour U-turn by the United States.
The US was at first booed after threatening to block the agreement, but then applauded after dropping its opposition to poorer countries' calls for technological and financial help to combat the issue.
The road map is intended to lead to a more inclusive and effective successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.
While it will be two years before a final deal is likely to be struck, countries have been fighting for things they want to see on the table for those talks.
Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the "historic breakthrough", while Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he was "delighted".
But campaigners said the road map had been stripped of vital targets and criticised the US's "wrecking policy".
Andy Atkins, Tearfund advocacy director, said: "The stalling tactics of the Bush administration and a few others snatched mediocrity from the jaws of resounding success.
"The good news is we have a process to negotiate further emissions cuts by 2020.
"But the fact that there is no agreement about exactly how far to cut emissions means the Bali road map is missing a vital signpost.
"An ambitious, science-based target will have to be agreed by 2009 if the new agreement is not to be fatally flawed."
Scientists say rising temperatures could cause seas to rise sharply, glaciers to melt, storms and droughts to become more intense and mass migration of climate refugees.
The EU conceded on one of the main sticking points – the inclusion in the road map of a reference of 25% to 40% emissions cuts by developed countries by 2020, which scientists have said are necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.
The EU had insisted the figures were in the document because they are based on the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and an ambitious road map was needed.
But the US demanded – and won – their removal, claiming they could "prejudge" outcomes of negotiations.
The Europeans accepted a deal in which the targets were missing, as were references to the need for emissions to peak within 10 to 15 years and for global greenhouse gas output to halve by 2050.
Instead the document said countries recognise that "deep cuts in global emissions" will be required, and calls for a "long-term global goal for emissions reductions".
In turn the US conceded over the issue of how much developing countries need to do to curb their emissions.
Keith Allott, head of climate change at WWF UK, said: "We are not at all pleased.
"We were looking for a road map with a destination."
Greenpeace said the US was "shamed" by the firm resolve of the developing countries – China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
"The Bush administration has unscrupulously taken a monkey wrench to the level of action on climate change that the science demands," said Gerd Leipold, executive director of Greenpeace International.
"They've relegated the science to a footnote."
Nelson Muffuh, a Christian Aid senior climate change policy analyst, said: "For most of the conference, the US delegation in particular proved a major obstacle to progress.
"They appeared to operate a wrecking policy, as though determined to derail the whole process...
"We were expecting a road map, and we've got one. But it lacks signposts and there is no agreed destination."
Muffuh continued: "We must praise the heroism of some of the developing countries who are far less wealthy and far less responsible for the problem than the US and yet came here with a desire to see a deal agreed.
"Their bravery in standing up to the US no doubt played a part in its U-turn."
Friends of the Earth director Tony Juniper said many of the developing countries brought good proposals – but the industrialised nations had let them down.
He said: "We only have two years to build on this weak outcome and develop a just deal which ensures tough action from industrialised countries and assistance for people in the developing world."
ActionAid campaigner Tom Sharman said: "New and additional finance must be found to close the multi-billion gap between what is needed and what is currently available to fund adaptation in poor countries."
Paula Dobriansky, the head of the US delegation, said that the appeals convinced the US delegation that developing nations did not intend to dilute their commitment to take steps to stop global warming.
"After hearing the comments...we were assured by their words to act," Ms Dobriansky said.
"So with that, we felt it was important that we go forward."
The US is the only major industrial nation to reject Kyoto.
President George Bush has complained that it would unduly damage the US economy, and emission caps should have been imposed on China, India and other fast-growing, developing countries.
The Bush administration favours a voluntary approach with each country deciding how it can contribute in place of internationally negotiated and legally binding commitments.
"This is the beginning, not the end," the UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon said. "We will have to engage in more complex, long and difficult negotiations."
UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said: "This is a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change. Parties have recognised the urgency of action on climate change."
The full article contains 961 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
