A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. That’s what I’ve been grappling with as the Copenhagen climate talks enter their fourth day.

The political intrigue at hand concerns the growing number of leaked documents claiming to be draft ‘Copenhagen Agreements’. One of these, the so-called Danish text, was published on Tuesday by the Guardian; and a second, the BASIC text, appeared in Le Monde today. Amongst the oceans of draft papers and even ‘non-papers’ doing the rounds in Copenhagen, these are significant because they seek to be the bones of the political agreement that is expected to be signed at the end of the summit.

The Danish text has caused greater furore so far, because it’s being seen by developing countries as a stitch-up by the rich that imposes unfair conditions on the poor. Critics have taken aim at both the secrecy with which it was drawn up, and the provisions it contains.

There’s little doubt about the secrecy of the process which produced this piece of paper. The UNFCCC’s main plenary hall is one of the largest meeting-places I’ve ever seen, but everyone knows the real business gets done in small smoke-filled rooms out the back. What’s surprising about the leaked document is how blatantly the authors have put together the whole agreement even before the talks have begun; the draft is dated 27^th November. This in itself accounts for some of the vitriole with which observers have responded to the paper. The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, has acknowledged that the Danish text has raised “trust issues” between developed and developing countries.

But as to the contents, this is where no-one seems to agree. John Vidal’s Guardian article takes a hard line that the leaked text spells disaster for developing countries, basing this assessment on “a confidential analysis of the text by developing countries … [which] shows deep unease over details of the text.” Ed Miliband, UK Minister for Energy and Climate Change, assures us not to believe everything we read in the Guardian. Our very own Casper ter Kuile, founder of the UKYD, reports how the leaked document provoked protests inside the conference centre. Alex Evans over on Global Dashboard cautions not to believe the hype, arguing: “What we do have is a somewhat over-excited media / NGO circus that’s both itching for gossip, and totally uncritical when a G77 government decides to strengthen its negotiating hand by playing the victim card in an anonymous briefing.” Tan Copsey of ChinaDialogue points out that the text is likely to be already out of date, with further versions in the offing. The Financial Times summarises various reactions from leading environment and development NGOs, all of which condemn the draft text. I could go on.

We got yet another opinion today when the UKYD met with Pete Betts from the official UK negotiating team. He broadly dismissed the Danish text, claiming the Guardian article contained inaccuracies, and that the perceived unfairness of the text was the invention of an overexcited journalist, not the legitimate concerns of developing countries. He’s wrong on this point – I’ve seen the analysis that the Guardian used: it comes from a very senior G77 negotiator (I’d love to tell you who it is, but then I’d have to kill you). Betts had a point, however, when he stressed that the apparent secrecy surround the text is part-and-parcel of negotiating practice – drafts are prepared by smaller groups of nations, pre-COP, for discussion at the conference proper.

So, what’s happening here? I ’m not going to go into all the details of the text – you can read them yourself here (I recommend you don’t do so if you’re sleepy). But it helps to understand the situation – and the whole debate at Copenhagen – by focusing on one big area. This is the issue of ‘killing Kyoto.’

In a nutshell, what emerges from Copenhagen could be either a single-track agreement that binds in all nations, or a twin- track agreement that preserves the Kyoto Protocol and continues to differentiate between rich and poor nations. What the Danish paper proposes is a single agreement, bringing together all nations. This scares many developing countries, as it opens the door to them being forced to accept emissions caps like the ones currently accepted by developed countries. The BASIC paper mentioned earlier, written as a response to the Danish text by China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Sudan, encapsulates the preferences of the developing world for a twin-track treaty. It suggests sticking with the Kyoto Protocol’s approach, ensuring clear blue water between developed and developing countries, and safeguarding the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. Developing nations take on some responsibilities under the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) workstream that countries have been working on since Bali two years ago. Elementary, my dear Watson!

At least, that’s what I’ve picked up so far. There’s a pretty overwhelming amount of information going around at the conference and many mysteries still waiting to be unfurled. For now, I’m enjoying unpicking some of the knotty negotiations, and the drama of political intrigue. Back to the paper chase!