Brussels, 18/09/2015 (Agence Europe) - In Paris next December, the EU will negotiate an ambitious global climate agreement that in the long term aims to reduce world emissions by half by 2050 and carbon neutrality by 2100.
EU 28 Environment Ministers managed to thrash out the EU's negotiating position in record time on Friday 18 September for the Paris climate conference (COP 21, 30 November - 11 December) and reach a decision on the difficult question of the future global agreement's long-term objective, which was far from being a done deal.
The unanimous conclusions adopted outlined the European vision for the Paris agreement and constitute the EU's finalised negotiating brief. This is a universal, legally binding and dynamic agreement that contains a revision clause every five years, which can revise goals upwards or maintain them as they are, which the EU will be negotiating in Paris with its international partners. Ministers also said that the Paris agreement is also expected to contain a transparency and verification mechanism for verification of each party's commitments.
Ministers want mitigation and adaptation to be treated on an equal footing in an effort to help developing countries, particularly those most vulnerable to climate change. In their conclusions, they confirm the EU's determination to pay its appropriate share of the $100 billion a year that needs to be raised from 2020 in an effort to support the mitigation and adaptation efforts of developing countries. This is because it is clear that funding will be a key factor for the conclusion of an ambitious agreement in December 2015, which establishes a global regime for tackling climate change post-2020.
This was taken as read (see EUROPE 11391). Ministers, however set out a long-term objective for the EU's promotion of a reduction in global emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels and an obligation on all parties in the Paris agreement to be “near zero or below by 2100”.
This formulation results from a compromise and was accepted by everyone, including Poland.
Initially, the European Commission and the majority of member states wanted the long-term objective to be a 60% reduction by 2050 compared to 2010 levels and decarbonisation by 2100.
Poland and its central and eastern European allies are very coal dependent when it comes to producing electricity and did not want to hear any talk of decarbonisation. They insisted on sticking to the 40%-60% band compared to the 1990 level advocated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for emissions reductions by 2050 and approved by the G-7 summit in June.
The Council also welcomed the G-7 statement and underlined that all the parties “should pursue transformative pathways towards a long term vision of global and sustainable climate neutrality and climate resilience in the second half of this century”. This formulation was supported by Poland, and its minister, Marcin Korolec, who said that he was delighted with it. Austria is hostile to nuclear energy and, supported by a number of countries, managed to add the word “sustainable” to the text.
The Council also explains that in an effort to contain rises in temperature to below 2°C, global greenhouse gas emissions should peak in 2020 at the latest. This compromise could possibly be accepted by everybody. Failing to gain support, the United Kingdom was unable to get the possibility of increasing ambition levels through international market mechanisms accepted.
The agreement revision mechanism on which the EU has a mandate to negotiate in Paris, has been drafted in such a way that makes it incumbent on the countries to submit their commitments that have been increased or have remained the same but without falling behind previous levels of commitment.
Speaking at the end of the session she chaired, Carole Dieschbourg, the Luxembourg minister was delighted and stated “we have an agreement and this is a balanced agreement”. The EU is in good shape for participating in the Paris conference. The visit of many environment ministers to the Vatican (on 16 September: Ed) proved inspiring. She said that they had a strong and responsible mandate for a global agreement with all the parties. She particularly welcomed “the clear revision cycles that represent a kind of ambition mechanism that will rectify the shortfall between short-term and long-term emissions reduction objectives”.
Miguel Arias Canete, the European commissioner for climate action and energy affirmed: “The EU is fully equipped to seal an ambitious climate deal in COP 21. With this solid position, the EU will be a deal maker in Paris, and not just a deal taker”.
Ségolène Royal, the French minister for the environment and sustainable development, welcomed the “ambitious and facilitating negotiating mandate that would encourage countries and continents to commit to their energy transition”. She also said that the EU wanted climate financing to be included in the agreement and called for Europe to deepen its partnership with Africa in an effort to ensure “the right balance between finance, climate strategy and development”. She pointed out that “the EU is responsible for half of the Green Climate Fund” and said this strong contribution would make all the difference to the Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009, which had failed. As Presidency of the COP in Paris, France would like “all EU countries to be clear about what they are doing and are going to do and that they are able to explain what legal backing they have to ensure the commitments are credible” from a legislative and funding point of view. She informed the press that this “will be a way of providing visibility to a Europe of energy, national energy models and showing the existing convergence between energy transition and a global level solution. The EU will be appealing for the solutions agenda, which is effectively the operational translation of the commitments, which will be adopted in Paris and anchored into the agreement”.
The German minister, Barbara Hendricks, emphasised that a five yearly revision mechanism for the commitments would mean that the EU would have to revise its INDC contribution upwards in 2025 and focus on reducing its emissions by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The Polish minister, Marcin Korolec, said he was satisfied with the fact that “Carbon Neutrality” had prevailed over decarbonisation. According to the latter, the formulation decided on would enable developing countries to prioritise forests and for developed countries to focus on negative emissions through Carbon Storage Capture (CSC) technologies and Carbon Capture Use “CCU “, which “will be very important for the steel, cement and glass industries”.
The environmental NGOs were disappointed with a position they judged too weak for shifting to hundred percent renewable energies by 2050. The WWF considers that the EU's position “lacks clarity” on how Europe intends to contribute to it in practice. It said that what is notably missing from the EU's position is the way the EU intends to deliver more than the proposed 40% greenhouse gas emission reduction target by 2030 and how it will provide its fair share of international climate finance in the fight against climate change. The same disappointment was expressed by Friends of the Earth Europe (FoE), which criticises the EU for going to Paris with an “inadequate offer” by sticking to its objective decided on in October 2014. This NGO believes that the EU's INDC for the 2013 horizon “ is not in line with the science for keeping global warming below 2°C and does not reflect the EU's historical responsibility”. (Aminata Niang)