The position of the EU in the
international climate change
negotiations
IUCN Academy of Environmental Law Expert Meeting
‘The European position towards Copenhagen:
A global outlook’
20 May 2009
Javier de Cendra de Larragán
METRO, Law Faculty
The EU vision of the negotiations: a
comprehensive one?
“Over the past two months the EU has set out a
comprehensive vision for the Copenhagen
agreement. We now look to our partners to
support our positions or to propose constructive
alternatives.”
Commissioner Stavros Dimas, declaration before Bonn
negotiations, April 2009.
A Common vision?
“This commonality of views between the institutions
is essential to maintain Europe’s leadership in the
international negotiations on a new global climate
deal. We need to work together and mobilize all
our resources to ensure a strong and effective
agreement is reached at the Copenhagen climate
conference in December.”
Stavros Dimas, commenting upon the European Parliament
recommendations on future EU climate policy, 4 February
2009
The background of the EU vision
• Commission communication on the road to Copenhagen
COM (2009) 39
• Council Conclusions
– Environmental Council 2 March
– ECOFIN 10 March
– Spring Council 19 & 20 March
• European Parliament resolutions
– Report on building a Global Climate Change Alliance between
the European Union and poor developing countries most
vulnerable to climate change
– 2050: The future begins today: recommendations for the EU’s
future integrated policy on climate change
Shared vision for a Copenhagen
agreement
• All parties agree that it:
– Should include four building blocks of Bali
Action Plan.
– Should be built on the CBDR principle and
sustainable development.
• EU additions:
– It should include the need to make the
transition to a low carbon society.
– It should adopt a forward-looking perspective.
Mitigation
• Target for developed countries => 25-40 % by 2020, 80-95 % by
2050
– Ambitious enough?
• Accounting for latest science? 350 ppm
• Extent of use and quality of CDM credits?
• Hot air, Forests?
– Fairness and comparability?
• Gradual convergence national per capita emissions at global level
• GDP/pc + GHG emissions/ unit GDP+ early action + pop. Trends.
• Common metrics.
– How to get there?
• Low carbon development strategies.
• Global carbon market.
• Target for developing countries => 15-30 % below BAU by 2020
for advanced developing countries
– National low carbon development strategies + robust & verifiable
credible pathways.
– Independent technical analysis.
– MRV action and benefits must be registered in new International
Registry.
Adaptation
Goals
– Adaptation is needed worldwide but priority must be
given to LDCs and vulnerable countries.
– Adaptation must be systematically integrated into
national strategies.
– Tools to define and implement adaptation strategies
need to be improved.
• Means
– A technical panel on adaptation in the UNFCCC?
– NAPAs.
– Global Climate Change Alliance is a platform for
exchange of experiences.
– Financial contributions (see below).
Technology cooperation
• What are the problems?
– Many legal, economic and institutional barriers to development,
transfer, deployment and diffusion of technologies.
– Substantial decrease in RD&D in developed countries.
• What should be done?
– Overcome existing barriers.
– Substantial increase in RD&D at global level.
• How?
–
–
–
–
Reduce market barriers within the WTO.
Set up IPR regimes in developing countries.
Create consultative group in the Copenhagen agreement.
Enhanced technology framework with developing countries.
– Carbon market + CDM for commercially viable technologies.
– Public funding, i.e. 300 million allowances from EU ETS set aside to
stimulate CCS and RES technologies.
– Capacity building for energy efficiency improvements.
• When? EU position further defined by the Council in June
Financing mitigation
• Net global incremental investments EUR 175 billion by 2020; 50 per
cent in dev’ing countries.
• Under which conditions will mitigation be financed?
–
–
–
–
Additional net investment costs identified in national strategies.
Robust and verifiable strategies + independent technical analysis.
MRV actions and benefits into international registry.
International financial architecture must be governed by principles of
effectiveness, efficiency, equity, transparency, accountability, coherence,
predictability and sound financial management.
– Maximize effectiveness of financial support.
– Maximize linkages and synergies with existing ODA.
– MRV should also apply to financial support.
• From which sources?
– Domestic for actions with low incremental costs or benefits
– External for incremental costs for high cost actions.
• Carbon markets => CDM, auction revenues subject to Member State will
• Public funds.
• Innovative financing mechanisms.
• Burden sharing rules still to be decided
Financing adaptation
•
How much? EUR 23-54 billion per year in 2030
– KP Adaptation Fund covers needs of most vulnerable countries.
– For other dev’ing countries, need for innovative sources of finance.
– Multilateral insurance pool to cover disaster losses.
•
Principles
– Coherence, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, specific attention to forests
•
Sharing the burden among developed countries?
– Comparability based on PPP and capability + scale of contributions in Agreement.
•
Practical options for fund raising
– New international fund sourced on basis of PPP and ability to pay.
– Setting aside an (increasing) percentage of allowed emissions for auctioning.
– Funding from a global instrument addressing int’l aviation and shipping.
•
What about EU funding?
– Revenues from auctions in the EU ETS, subject to Member States will.
– Global Climate Financing Mechanism (EUR 1 billion/year, subject to MS will)
Financing technology transfer
• How much?
– To stabilize global emissions at 2000 levels, global annual
additional investment needed between US 200 and 210 billion
by 2030. US 25 trillion alone in infrastructure until 2030.
• From where?
– Carbon market (CDM)
– Carbon market (EU ETS) => 300 million allowances for CCS
demonstration plants and innovative RES technologies +
auction revenues if MS so wish
Conclusions
A comprehensive and common strategy?