The need for 5 year Commitment Periods in the Paris Protocol: Why a “review” is inadequate

The policy brief contends that a 10-year commitment cycle for climate mitigation is too long and would lock in current low levels of ambition until 2030. It argues that 'reviews' are historically inadequate for increasing ambition unless they are treaty-mandated with strict 'shall' language. The author advocates for a common 5-year commitment period system to align with IPCC Assessment Reports and respond to falling costs of low-carbon technologies.

• A 10-year commitment period is considered too long because it would lock in low levels of ambition until 2030 and discourage the ratcheting up of targets, which is critical given that current INDCs suggest a global temperature increase of 3.0-3.5ºC.
• Historical UNFCCC reviews have generally failed to increase ambition or create substantive change because they lacked clear mandates, defined outcomes, or binding language, often serving as mere 'rubber stamping exercises'.
• The document identifies that the only successful reviews in UNFCCC history—the 1995 COP1 review and the 2005 Kyoto Protocol Article 3.9 negotiations—succeeded because they were mandated by treaty, used 'shall' language, and unequivocally defined the start date and intended outcome.
• Implementing 5-year commitment periods is presented as an imperative for environmental integrity to allow for political accountability, alignment with IPCC Assessment Report periodicity, and responsiveness to the falling prices of low-carbon technologies.

APA

Carbon Market Watch (n.d.). The need for 5 year Commitment Periods in the Paris Protocol: Why a “review” is inadequate. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-importance-of-5-year-CPs-and-why_international_FINAL_.pdf

Chicago

Carbon Market Watch. The need for 5 year Commitment Periods in the Paris Protocol: Why a “review” is inadequate. n.d. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-importance-of-5-year-CPs-and-why_international_FINAL_.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Carbon Market Watch |title=The need for 5 year Commitment Periods in the Paris Protocol: Why a “review” is inadequate |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-importance-of-5-year-CPs-and-why_international_FINAL_.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{carbonmarketwatchndneed, author = {{Carbon Market Watch}}, title = {{The need for 5 year Commitment Periods in the Paris Protocol: Why a “review” is inadequate}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/The-importance-of-5-year-CPs-and-why_international_FINAL_.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }