“C’mon!!! Do we really need 5 ye
ECO was becoming increasingly impatient sitting at the common time frames session on Wednesday. For the past years, countries have been contemplating different time frame options. These discussions have demonstrated the clear benefits of a five year common time frame.
During the open informal consultation on Wednesday, nearly every Party said they welcomed a decision on common time frames as soon as possible, with many seeking a decision now. Only the EU suggested that the decision could wait until 2022 or 2023. ECO is disappointed to hear the EU wants to continue the discussion and wonders for what sake. Is this because the EU can’t reach internal agreement on a position? Well, what more do you need? At some point, the EU needs to agree on a position, and there’s no reason for it not to be a five year common time frame — as many of its members already back.
ECO urges Parties to take a decision on this issue at COP25 and not prolong this any further. But with only two sessions scheduled for the COP, Parties haven’t even given themselves a chance to discuss how to make a decision, never mind make that decision! And while the co-facilitators have proposed efforts to take this work further, the LMDCs are only looking for a procedural decision. What’s wrong with streamlining the options into a coherent and comparable informal note including all options in decision language? ECO would be much happier to see brackets than bullets! And, even better, clean text supporting five year common timeframes! Get on with it — and try not to take five years on it, never mind ten! In light of all the recent reports showing the urgency of climate action now, do those asking for more time for deciding on “common time frames” miss the sad irony in asking for more time?
ars to decide on 5 year common time frames?