There are 250 days or so now remaining until the Copenhagen conference, where the most complicated and most crucial agreement in history will hopefully, in spite of much expected kicking and screaming to come, see the light of day. But what to make of the EU's contributions thus far?
The EU’s footprint in the negotiations last year was far from satisfactory. At December's Poznan conference we saw the EU fighting to some extent at the Brussels front for at least some – if not ambitious – adoption of the climate-energy package that is formally supposed to underpin the EU's position towards Copenhagen. It's worth bearing in mind that, half a year before, the European Council tasked the Commission to come up with a “comprehensive strategy for scaling up finance and investment flows for both mitigation and adaptation in response to the Bali Action Plan, including mechanisms for research and development in, and the dissemination and transfer of, safe and sustainable low-carbon technology”.
At the end of January, the Commission finally delivered – yet the 14 pages offered up just one general paragraph on mechanisms, virtually no figures or commitments, no clear information on how to refill funds for adaptation, and the transfer of technologies issue boiled down to – or perhaps merely side-stepped – a demand on developing countries to come up with their low-carbon development plans. After seven months of waiting, more was expected, even if the official Communication was underpinned by hundred-page studies.
Subsequently the ball was passed to officials, working groups and committees in the complicated, closed structure of the Council of Ministers out of which, at the beginning of March, Environment and Ecofin Council formations adopted contributions to the European Council.
Europe's environmental ministers outlined their positions towards Copenhagen in 40 points: one paragraph rehashed existing proposals for financing mechanisms as have been laid down by Norway and Mexico, there was a strong push for carbon markets over-riding any notion of public finance, some reference to figures but definitely no EU commitments, and a clear nod to an unreformed “continuing role of the Clean Development Mechanism” (read this as a source of cheap credits to fulfill the EU’s mitigation targets). Not a very satisfactory conclusion from those ministers most acquainted with the urgency and scale of the climate challenge.
The finance ministers, struggling with a number of points related to the economic crisis, adopted their conclusions on three pages. Notably, in some points such as the additionality point in the CDM paragraph and with more encouragement for the use of ETS revenues for the support of developing countries, they showed themselves to be more up to speed than their environment counterparts.
However, the preference shown to existing mechanisms and the private sector, as well as the blatant silence on figures and mechanisms – either those proposed by other parties or any “new and innovative” ones – provide little hope that our national purseholders have given the necessary support and mandate needed by environment officials for the international climate battle ahead.
Fearful of taking a bold step forward, the environment ministers invited the European Council “to consider the options for generating financial support”. In comparison to earlier versions, Europe's leaders slightly improved their conclusions on climate by adding special attention to the most vulnerable countries, and by providing a clear definition of further tasks for June's meeting of the European Council.
However, one added extra highlighting the role for the carbon market gives a clear signal – especially in the context of the over-arching conclusions which primarily focus on the economic crisis – that the EU’s plan for developing countries is all about finding new trading opportunities for European companies in emerging markets. Moreover, bearing in mind that climate was only a lunch item at this month's Spring summit, it's looking like a tall order to “further discuss” climate change financing at the June meeting and come up with an EU position “well in advance of the Copenhagen conference”.
Financing is the key to the Copenhagen deal, where not only the EU will have a say, and it will therefore require sufficient time for discussion at international negotiations. A further question requiring engagement from Europe's heads of states – especially with there being so much preoccupation with the economic crisis – is how to ensure that the highly regarded carbon markets don’t degenerate into yet another unregulated casino, prone to unmanageable speculations and risky business tendencies?
While derivatives markets have reached USD 600 trillion in recent years, the climate financing that is on offer now is a little over one-tenth of the minimum estimated requirements for climate financing coming from the UNFCCC. Upcoming international climate talks look set to see a great shift to the US side, while the EU dithers and squanders still available, though fast running out, time.