Kwesi W. Obeng blogs
Many
parties were explicitly dissatisfied with the slow pace of progress at the
AWG-KP and the failure to reach convergence on a list of critical issues around
the second commitment period of the Protocol.
The
issues over which they diverge are many and range from the length of the second
commitment period, through the overall ambition level, to the mid-term review
of commitment period reserve and carryover of Assigned Amount Units (AAU) to
the failure of some Annex I Parties to submit their Quantified Emissions
Limitation and Reduction Commitments (QELROs) information and conditions
attached to QELROs submitted by some developed country parties.
These
concerns shot to the fore at the closing plenary of the Ad hoc Working Group on
Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) on
May 24. Senegal’s Madeleine Diouf–Sarr
is chair of the AWG-KP.
Algeria
(chair of G77 and China) said the lack of clarity around the QELROs especially
will impede satisfactory outcome for the second commitment period of the
Protocol.
Swaziland
speaking for the Africa group said some parties were pushing for
re-interpretation of Protocol in an attempt to stall the process. In an
apparent reference to the AWG-ADP process, the group also expressed concern
over attempts by developed country parties to link the second commitment period
with other processes.
Developing
countries and groups want a five-year term for the second commitment period to
avoid locking in the low ambitions of Annex I Parties. However Annex I Parties
insist on an eight-year period.
Gambia
(chair of the Least Developed Countries)
said it was unacceptable that some Annex I Parties have failed to submit their
QELROs due to ‘national circumstances’. Nauru (chair of Association of Small Island States) also noted that the
low ambition levels of Parties cannot warrant an eight-year commitment
period. These concerns were also echoed
by Ecuador (for the Bolivarian Alliance
for the People of Our America), Saudi Arabia (for the Arab Group), Bangladesh and India.
The
European Union which insists on an eight-year period said the length of the
second commitment period is inextricably linked to other outstanding issues
such as amendments to Annex B and the carryover surplus AAUs. In effect, for
the European Union the lack of progress on the length of the second commitment
period will impede movement on all the other issues.
