The issue of the second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) of the Convention arises from Article 4.2 (d), whose provisions relevant to this issue read as follows:

"The COP shall, at its first session, review the adequacy of subparagraphs (a) and (b)... Such review shall be carried out in the light of the best available scientific information and assessment on climate change and its impacts, as well as relevant technical, social and economic information. Based on this review, the Conference of the Parties shall take appropriate action, which may include the adoption of amendments to the commitments in subparagraph (a) and (b) … A second review of subparagraphs (a) and (b) shall take place not later than 31 December 1998, and thereafter at regular intervals determined by the COP, until the objective of the Convention is met."

This provision was included in the Convention to address the concerns of some countries that Article 4.2(a) and (b), which includes the principle commitment of Annex I Parties to return their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000, was not sufficient.

The first review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) was undertaken at COP 1 (Berlin, March/April 1995) in accordance with Article 4.2(d). The COP concluded, in its decision known as the "Berlin Mandate", that Article 4.2(a) and (b) were not adequate and launched the negotiations that led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol at COP 3 (Kyoto, December 1997).

As Article 4.2(d) provides for the second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) to take place no later than 31 December 1998, this issue was included on the agenda of COP 4. Despite intensive consultations, it proved impossible to reach any agreed conclusion or decision on this matter. Parties agreed that the existing commitments of Annex I Parties are not adequate and that the Kyoto Protocol is an important step towards achieving the ultimate objective of the Convention. However, they failed to reconcile their differences on how to conduct the review and what steps needed to be taken. The fundamental issue that divided developed and developing countries was whether the implementation of the Article should be interpreted as opening up a discussion on commitments for non-Annex I Parties.

In accordance with the draft rules of procedure being applied, which stipulate that any agenda item whose consideration is not completed at one COP session will be automatically placed on the provisional agenda for the next, the second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) was included as an item on the provisional agenda for COP 5 (Bonn, October/November, 1999). During the adoption of the agenda, the Group of 77 and China proposed that the item be amended to read "review of the adequacy of implementation of Article 4.2(a) and (b)". There was no agreement on that proposal, and the item was held in abeyance. At the final plenary meeting, the President of the COP reported that, despite intensive consultations, it had again proven impossible to agree any conclusion or decision on this item.

Once again, in accordance with the draft rules of procedure being applied, the second review of the adequacy of Article 4.2(a) and (b) has been placed on the provisional agenda for COP 7, together with the amendment proposed by the G-77 and China recorded in a footnote. The outgoing President of COP 6 will report to the COP on the outcome of his consideration of how to achieve consensus on the issues to be covered under the item. The COP will address this matter in the light of the outgoing President’s report.