I am sitting right now in the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).
- S. Africa want some kind of update on future agreement, can be mid-term review, doesn’t need to be
- Columbia wants longer commitment period (c.p.), mid-term review in each period
- Africa for longer period (=less discussion, safe time and money)
- AOSIS: does EU really want to take the risk of 3°?
- Philippines: shorter c.p. (2013-2017/2018-2022),
- Australia: open to 450ppm aim or lower
- Japan: period to short if only 4 years, not support two consecutive c.p. Because it “freezes the current distinction between developed and developing states”
- AOSIS: Australias policy gives no hope to stay below 450ppm, need to have a 45% reduction among Annex I Parties (A1)
- Czech Republic: open to proposals
- Australia: also open to length of c.p. – but had only ONE c.p. in mind
- Panama: no certainty in markets
- Costa Rica: there is the need to adjust UP, not Down and Science gives us constantly reason to do so
- Switzerland: mandate goes from 20-30%
- S.Africa: Australia wants to include “advanced economies” of non-A1 into the A1 – which one?
- Japan: 45% reduction only domestic or with offsetting (at AOSIS)
- Gambia supports Senegal, need for longer c.p., possibility of review when IPCC bring out next report
- Micronesia: gets nerved, “Thank you Madam Chair, I try not to be as encrypting as Australia has been…”, “I am happy to clarify for Japan…”
- India: need for a band of time (one year is not good, much can happen), long c.p.