Developing countries came together to support the EU's plan for a binding agreement to combat global warming, but there were still significant disagreements evident in draft agreements at the UN climate talks. The EU's proposal aims for a new agreement by 2015 that would require major emitters to make mandatory reductions in heat-trapping gases, with the agreement taking effect within five years. EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard stated that Brazil and South Africa are now in favor of mandatory emissions cuts, but cautioned that the success of the talks in Durban is dependent on a few countries who have yet to commit to the EU's plan and its necessary details. "If there is no further progress by 4 o'clock this morning, I believe a deal in Durban is unlikely. This is the current situation we are facing." A new document has been proposed that could require over 30 developed countries to reduce emissions as part of the Kyoto Protocol's next phase. However, this document would only be approved if all major emitters, including China, India, and the US, agreed to legally binding targets in a separate agreement. Climate experts are skeptical that the wording of this second document, which only mentions a "legal framework," will be sufficient, as many countries are pushing for a binding treaty. "If the proposed texts are approved, in the coming years we will not have a legal framework to control the actions of major emitters, particularly developed countries," said Rene Orellana, who serves as Bolivia's chief negotiator and is a member of the ALBA group of Latin American nations. "This lack of regulation would allow everyone to act as they please, leading to serious consequences. It is not just the end of the Kyoto Protocol, but a threat to the survival of our planet. We urgently need a system in place to monitor and enforce emissions reductions." Critics have also raised concerns about the ambiguity of the texts regarding the timeline and depth of emissions cuts that will be required. The EU's approach at the conference is to form a coalition of willing countries in order to put pressure on the top three carbon emitters - China, the United States, and India - to agree to mandatory reductions. These countries are not currently obligated by the Kyoto Protocol. The US insists on binding reductions only if all major polluters commit to similar actions. China and India argue that it would be unjust to expect them to make the same level of reductions as developed nations, which are primarily responsible for global warming. Many delegates predict that the climate talks in Durban will likely result in a weak political agreement, with countries committing to begin discussions on a new system of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases. They claim that anything less than achieving change would be catastrophic. Recent U.N. reports have shown that time is running out to make a difference, as a warming planet will worsen droughts and floods, lead to crop failures, and raise sea levels to the extent that some island nations are at risk of disappearing. The Durban talks are expected to continue well into the night and possibly into Saturday, frustrating delegates from small islands and African nations who took part in a protest alongside green groups outside the main negotiation room. "You must rescue us, the islands cannot go under. It is our right to survive, you cannot control our fate. We will need to be rescued," stated Mohamed Aslam, the climate negotiator for Maldives. Karl Hood, the foreign minister of Grenada and leader of the 43-nation Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) whose members are most affected by climate change, expressed frustration that the discussions were not addressing the core climate issues. "We are getting caught up in minor details rather than focusing on the major problem, such as prioritizing adaptation over mitigation," he remarked. I believe that Durban could potentially bring an end to UN climate negotiations.