Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-29-Speech-3-021"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001129.6.3-021"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting me to share with you my impressions of the sixth conference of the parties, the so-called COP6, to the United Nations framework convention on climate change, that took place the past two weeks in The Hague. After intensive negotiations, both at technical and ministerial level, on the basis of draft decisions with approximately 500 square brackets, it was not possible to reach a comprehensive agreement on key political issues.
Finally, as the rules and modalities for the functioning of the Kyoto protocol have not been adopted, ratification of the protocol will have to be postponed until after the next session and the meeting of COP6. However, the internal preparation for ratification through the European climate change programme and the development of a European Union emissions trading scheme will continue.
Thank you for your attention and I am willing to answer any questions you might have.
The European Union negotiating position concentrated on safeguarding the environmental integrity of the Kyoto protocol in the areas of land-use change and forestry, the “sinks” issue, the relation between the Kyoto mechanism and domestic action, known as “supplementarity”, and compliance. This meant that in the negotiations with other parties, trade-offs between these issues had to be explored.
With good technical progress on the rules for the Kyoto mechanisms and the development of a compliance system, final negotiations focused mainly on trade-offs between “supplementarity” and “sinks”. However, there was not enough time to fully evaluate last minute compromise proposals on the use of “sinks” in terms of their impact on the different countries inside and outside the European Union. Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence that the environmental integrity would be seriously compromised. Therefore, the European Union decided not to accept these proposals.
In order not to let the mandate of the Buenos Aires plan of action, that ran until the so-called COP6 conference, expire without any concrete result or follow-up, parties have decided to suspend COP6 and resume the conference in May 2001.
COP6 was not all negative – far from it. We made some good progress. For example, a set of proposals responding to developing countries’ needs and concerns was drawn up, including new funding and new institutions, but also a more focused approach on climate change within the global environment facility – the so-called GEF. Also progress was made at the technical level on other issues, such as policies and measures to reduce emissions, capacity building, technology transfer, emissions trading, joint implementation and compliance. All efforts should be made to finalise these decisions at the resumed session in May.
Another positive outcome of COP6 is that it helped to obtain a better understanding of other parties’ positions. This knowledge is extremely useful and should be built on further in the coming months. Mr Pronk was a very dedicated president of COP6. The proposal he made at the end of the second week outlines a package and constitutes one of the bases for further discussion and negotiation in the coming months. However, insufficient time was left to finalise the negotiations on the basis of his document; too much precious negotiating time was lost on ministerial statements and the repetition of well-known positions. Consequently, there was not enough time to analyse all the impacts of the different proposals relating to sinks that were made in the final hours. This is an issue that remains the subject of significant uncertainty.
We all knew that, in order to get an agreement with the United States and its allies of the “umbrella group”, the European Union would have to make concessions. In the end, however, the concessions obtained from other parties on “supplementarity”, compliance and the Kyoto mechanisms were insufficient to compensate for the weakening of emission-reduction targets, that would have been the result if the proposal on “sinks” had been accepted.
Where do we go from here? As a priority, evaluation and preparation of further discussions should take place within the European Union. With a view to preparing this next session, the EU should not reopen discussions on all issues, but focus on key priorities, notably “sinks” mechanisms, “supplementarity” and a strong compliance regime. A smooth transition from the French to the Swedish Presidency has to be ensured and close contact should also be kept with Mr Pronk. The EU must review its positions on the key issues and, where appropriate, make new proposals.
The Commission is fully committed to developing a strong common EU line together with the incoming presidency. In addition to further coordination within the European Union, contacts with other parties should be intensified. An absolute pre-condition for an agreement on “sinks” at the next session is to have one common set of data, instead of every party doing its own calculation. The EU will deepen its relations with all major groups and will also contact the new US administration as soon as possible."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples