Another busy day behind me, and another one starting. I’m getting quite used to the fact that before getting breakfast, I take up my laptop and check what the news says about the negotiations yesterday…yeah, call me a workaholic. Yesterday one of the French participants to the Youth Summit managed to speak with the head of the French delegation here in Montreal, and a result of that meeting may be that we might meet with the heads of all EU delegations and a group of young people. Hopefully, this will work out, probably early next week. In between following negotiations and assisting the Youth Delegation, I try to finish my presentation here, which I will have to give this afternoon.

Yesterday, one of the most important topics of this COP/COPMOP was on the agenda of one of the contact groups, namely Article 3.9 of the Kyoto Protocol. Art. 3.9 states clearly that Parties should start discussing the future commitments of Annex I countries in 2005. While there were some interesting points made, it also made me sad to see how negotiations can drag on over futile issues sometimes. Although all Parties agreed that discussions on Art. 3.9 are very important and should start immediately, there were some differences. The EU, Japan all forwarded proposals for elements of a draft decision on this issue. The EU and Japan, much to the dislike of some G77 states want to link discussion of this Article with broader discussions on Art. 9 (review of the entire Protocol, which is only due next year), and the FCCC in general. The G77 on the other hand want to link the matter to Art. 3.2, which requires Annex I countries to show demonstrable progress in 2005. They accuse Annex I countries of diverting attention from their own commitments. Fair positions. However, instead of debating the substantive elements of these proposals, talks got stuck on a question whether the G77 text should be taken as the basis for negotiation.

China maybe overstated it, but made a good point, when it stated that if no agreement could be reached, we might be killing a young child at the age of 7. The question it also posed is to be or not to be. The question at stake, however, rather is to broaden or not to broaden. The G77 pushed for their text to be the negotiation draft, because it would prevent this item turning into a discussion on possible future commitments (in whatever form) for (some) developing countries. Although their point about diversion should be taken seriously, all Parties should remain constructive in their debate and acknowledge that, ultimately, all Parties should take on some form of commitments.