Brussels, 21/12/2009 (Agence Europe) - At 3 a.m. on Saturday 19 December at the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, there was great disappointment when the European Union formally announced to the press the minimalist agreement reached by the planet's Heads of State (EUROPE 10044). How was any other reaction possible? The EU, which saw itself as the chef de file (which indeed it was, not in the conduct of negotiations, but in terms of commitments, both for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and emergency funding in favour of the developing countries) was forced to admit that it had not had the hoped-for effect of encouraging the other countries to follow its lead. Even worse: the alliance between the United States and the large emerging countries (China, India, Brazil, South Africa) managed to marginalise it and bring the level of ambition of the agreement down to the lowest common denominator.
Fredrik Reinfeldt, President-in-exercise of the European Council, and José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, did not quite manage to keep their composure when confirming that the European Union had- mainly out of solidarity for the developing countries- unwillingly agreed to a political agreement which is disappointing as it is not binding and contains no targeted objective for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions levels of the industrialised countries. Nonetheless, for all its shortcomings, the Copenhagen Accord is better than no agreement at all. Both were firmly of this opinion, preferring to see the five-page text as a decisive stage on the way to a binding agreement rather than as a resounding failure, or the "disaster" denounced by the countries which are poorest and most vulnerable to global warming, by environment and development NGOs and a number of MEPs (left-wing and ALDE) and disappointed observers.
"We finally have an agreement. It was concluded at 20 minutes to midnight. We negotiated round-the-clock to reach a political agreement. Let's be honest. It's not a perfect agreement. It is not going to solve the threat of global warming. The limit of two degrees Celsius (for the average increase in temperatures on the surface of the planet compared to the pre-industrial era: Ed) will not be achieved on the basis of this agreement. But it is a start, which needs to be developed next year", Mr Reinfeldt declared. If all of the reduction pledges of the rich countries, which have not yet been made in writing, were added together, this would give an average reduction of just 18% of emissions compared to 1990 levels. This puts us a long way from where we need to be, Mr Reinfeldt added. This does not take account of the fact that according to the UNFCC itself, the reduction promises as they stand will lead to an average increase in temperatures of 3°C.
The positive elements of the accord, he continued, are the reference to 2°C, the joint willingness, duly noted, to take action to achieve this objective dictated by science, so that global and national emissions will reach their peak and start to reduce as quickly as possible, the commitment of the industrialised countries to commit their pledges for emissions reductions made to paper before 1 February 2010, the reference to fast track funding for the development countries, in the neighbourhood of 30 billion dollars 2010-2012, according to the promises made by the rich countries (EU: 10.6 billion dollars, Japan 11 billion, United States 3.6 billion) and a reference to long-term funding. "Short-term funding is very important to the adaptation measures. The EU will put in 2.4 billion euros (2.6 billion dollars). Japan's funding is in the same order. That of the Americans is lower", stressed Mr Reinfeldt.
He sees a very easy explanation for the disappointing results in Copenhagen. "The EU was well-prepared and had been for a long time. There was not the same level of preparation in the other parties. Discussions were very tough". The EU had to fight to prevent the international community from moving backwards. When asked about the announcement made by a Sudanese diplomat that the agreement had been rejected, Mr Reinfeldt said that he wanted to hear the reasons for this rejection, adding that Sudan had been present in the limited group of 26 Heads of State supported the Presidency, and which negotiated under the heading of the 192 parties to the UN framework Convention on climate change (United States, Japan, Australia, Russia, Norway, EU + Commission, Denmark, Germany, France, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Spain and, for the emerging countries: China, India, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Colombia, South Africa, Brazil, South Korea; for the OPEC countries: Saudi Arabia; for the G77: Sudan, Granada, Maldives, Algeria, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Bangladesh).
There were no doubts in the mind of José Manuel Barroso: "this accord is better than no accord at all. It is a positive step, but below our expectations. I cannot hide my disappointment at the lack of ambition: the agreement is non-binding. The text falls short of my expectations. But at the same time, this is the first time that we have managed to put the actions pledged for the first time by many other parties into an agreement". His biggest regret was that, despite agreeing to a 2°C limit, several parties refused to reduce total emissions by a half by 2050. “How is it possible to meet the 2° without any concrete targets?” he asked, adding, “We decided to approve the text because we didn't want any breaks in the process, and we didn't want to weaken our solidarity with poor countries”. When asked if the EU was at the same table as China and the US when the deal was sealed, Barroso replied, “We led the way, but not on reducing the level of ambition”.
When asked by press about the Danish chairmanship, criticised for its lack of presence, of the COP 15 negotiations, Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen said only, “As COP Chair, you cannot determine the outcome of the COP alone”. Irish Environment Minister John Gormley added that “the Swedish Presidency of the EU did all in its power. The EU showed the way, but the others didn't follow. That's the simple truth”.
An African minister questioned the rule that requires unanimity among the 192 parties and said, on condition of anonymity, that the EU would have been stronger if it had been united, but that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, wanting to take things in hand, had “weakened the Danish chairmanship” of the meeting.
A European negotiator said that the positive side of Copenhagen was mainly that the United States had joined a binding process. However, “a year has been lost”, because negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol and the Framework Convention would continue until the end of 2010. The postponement until the end of January 2010 of detailed pledges for 2020 from the industrialised countries might suit those EU member states (Italy, Germany, and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe) that were unhappy about going too quickly from a 20% emissions reduction target by 2020 to 30%.
Five Latin American countries reject the agreement
The agreement, announced as having been concluded a little before midnight, and with most heads of state and European Commission leaders having left Copenhagen, was in fact deadlocked throughout the whole of the night from Friday into Saturday by developing countries upset by the tactics of a handful of countries which, they felt, showed scant regard for the fate of millions of people threatened by global warming and also by UNFCCC rules under which decisions have to be taken unanimously. It was only at 10.00am on 19 December, after many recriminations and expressions of despair, that a form of words could be found to approve the agreement and prevent the poorest and most vulnerable countries being deprived of immediate access to the €30 billion to be used for mitigation. On a proposal from David Miliband, a decision was taken stating that the COP took note of the agreement of 18 December and listing in an appendix all the countries subscribing to it. Five Latin American countries - Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Venezuela - do not feature on the list. Deeming the agreement unacceptable since it was imposed by a small group of countries, they sent a letter to the UNFCCC secretariat protesting about the infringement of procedures and calling for ways to be investigated of how to avoid such things happening again. “Our future is not for sale. Tuvalu cannot accept this document,” said the president of that small island. A Venezuelan diplomat expressed her disbelief that a handful of countries had put a decision on the table and spoke about an agreement. “An international agreement cannot be imposed by a small group of countries,” she said, speaking of a “coup d'état against the United Nations”. The claim by a Sudanese diplomat, that the potentially fatal effects of the agreement on the people of the small islands and of Africa could be compared to the six million deaths in the Holocaust, upset and offended the Europeans. By mid-afternoon, Bolivian President Evo Morales had announced that he was leaving the plenary session, giving prior warning that he would not accept “a document slipped under the door by the United States or one that had fallen from the heavens”. (A.N./transl.fl/rt)