Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-07-Speech-2-527"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100907.32.2-527"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I will try to answer two questions at the one time as they are both on the strategy for Cancún. I think it is very well known to those of you who are here that the EU’s objective on climate change is a comprehensive, legally-binding agreement that allows us to limit temperature increase to below 2 °C.
In addition, we are looking to anchor mitigation commitments made so far as a basis for their further discussion and strengthening. With such a result, Cancún would lay a solid foundation for an action-driven international framework and we would have proved that, if we can agree on substance, then it might be easier next year to agree on the future legal form.
However, we have to be clear that the outcome in Cancún must be balanced. What do I mean by balanced? The Kyoto Protocol, in its current structure, cannot deliver the objective to remain below 2 °C alone.
The EU position on a second commitment period under Kyoto is therefore clear. We are open to a second commitment period, but let us make it very clear to everybody that, in itself, that does not change a lot. We must have some conditions attached to this, or else we will make it more difficult for ourselves to pressure others to give commitments in the future. We must see comparable commitments by developed countries that are not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, such as the United States, and we must see actions by major emerging economies such as China.
But there are also other conditions that we will have to have fulfilled in order to accept a second commitment period. That is about environmental integrity, because there are today some weaknesses in the Kyoto Protocol that undermine its environmental integrity. These weaknesses must be addressed – in particular, in relation to the accounting methods for developed countries’ forestry and the banking of surplus emission budgets, the so-called AAUs, also called ‘hot air’. Otherwise, there is no chance that the world can stay below the 2 ºC.
Finally, we must improve the current rulebook, as we call it. Today, for instance, Kyoto rules prohibit the EU accounting for its coverage of the aviation sector. It prohibits us from new sectoral mechanisms. Also, we must have a modernisation of the CDM system. These kinds of obstacles must be changed in a future set-up, and we should take care that we do not just take a second commitment period without making this very clear and having it corrected.
At this point, there is a strong imbalance in the negotiations. Negotiations on the continuation of Kyoto are much more advanced than negotiations on new action from the US and emerging economies. We urgently need to make significant progress on the latter if Cancún is to succeed and if we are going to make real progress.
An important way for the EU to contribute to success in Cancún is to continue to lead by example. We are the world leader on climate action. We are on track to meet our Kyoto target. We have inscribed our 20% reduction commitment into law and we are willing to increase our target to 30%, if the conditions are right. In other words, we are delivering. We are also delivering on the fast start finance so, again, we are not the problem.
Last but not least – I was also asked about this in the questions – we are conducting a very active outreach to a number of other countries, and the Commission is also working with the Member States’ diplomatic services now with a view to launching a specific EU Green Diplomacy Network demarche in the run-up to Cancún, to sensitise political decision makers in selected third countries to our views.
In parallel, we have intensified the day-to-day outreach on climate carried out through the EU’s network of delegations. Needless to say, we would very much like to work with Parliament on these outreach activities. I had a fruitful exchange with your Conference of Delegation chairs today on the issue. I think Parliament has an excellent opportunity to reach out to different parliamentarians. If we cooperate and exchange the views we get, then we will also have a stronger position overall.
Such an agreement should be reached as soon as possible. That was our line up to Copenhagen. It is still our line. The EU is ready to adopt such an agreement at the Cancún conference in November/December 2010, but we have to recognise that, once again, others – and I say this having attended a ministerial meeting as recently as last week – will probably not be ready. We must therefore be realistic. I think it is fair to say that the step-by-step approach the Commission suggested back in March has got a lot of backing internationally. That is what is being pursued now. Therefore, of course, the big issue is what that then means for Cancún and what kind of package can be agreed in Cancún.
As we see it, we should aim at solving key architectural issues and launching concrete action through a set of decisions. The Cancún package could contain the following elements. First, we will have to cash in on the new elements that we actually agreed upon in the Copenhagen Accord. That will have to be reflected in the formal negotiations through decisions in Cancún.
It is also crucial that we make substantial progress when it comes to measuring, reporting and verification of emission reductions and to financial support. This is another key element.
Deforestation – formally establishing the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation mechanisms as foreseen in the Copenhagen Accord – should also be one of the deliverables from a package agreed in Cancún. We were so close in Copenhagen. We must be able to make an ambitious decision on forestry.
The same could be said on agreement on a framework for action on adaptation and also on technology cooperation. We are pursuing a strategy where we will try to see if we could have that as part of a decision in Cancún.
We should also have substantial progress on the financial architecture. Needless to say, when it comes to ‘fast start’ financing, one of the defining issues for Cancún will be whether the rest of the world can see that the developed countries live up to their financial pledges given in Copenhagen for fast start financing.
But we should also now try to discuss the architecture of the longer term, including how to establish a ‘green climate fund’. Preferably, we would also like to see decisions on new carbon market mechanisms to continue the development of the global carbon market for emission trading – in other words, modernisation of the CDM.
Finally, it is also on our wish list that we should see progress when it comes to emissions from aviation and maritime transport."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples