Paris Le Bourget, 10/12/2015 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 10 December at the COP21, the final level of ambition contained in the agreement was still the subject of much speculation and uncertainty. Apart from, perhaps, Saudi Arabia, which, on behalf of the oil exporting countries, was the only one to oppose a price being put on carbon fuels, at the plenary. The sleepless nights spent by the negotiators do not, however, appear to have been very productive.
The main novelty obtained today involved Tonga and Palau - two small island countries forming part of the Pacific members of the ACP group of countries linked to the EU and which officially submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC).
A new draft text is expected to be presented in the evening, resulting from the proposals on the three political questions that have proved the most difficult to decide, namely, differentiation, financing and the level of ambition in the agreement (see EUROPE 11449). Nonetheless, this will not be the final text but the N-1, experts say.
Bas Eickhout (Greens/EFA, Belgium) said that it was not a day for movement because “many countries are asking why they should shift now when tomorrow they will still have to shift some more”.
The European Union is officially fighting for an “ambitious, binding, dynamic and fair” agreement, in compliance with its negotiating mandate (see EUROPE 11391) and on Thursday, expressed concerns, whilst providing assurances that it would do everything it could to obtain compromises that were still able to meet the challenge in question.
Miguel Arias Cañete, the commissioner for climate action and energy, said: “The draft text is not brave or ambitious enough. It does not reflect the ministerial negotiations”. He highlighted three “reasons for concern”: the long-term objective, the commitments revision clause and the transparency and responsibility mechanism. He provided assurances that “governments have to show that they are seriously committed to a low carbon transition. We must show leadership and we are hoping that the new version of the text will rectify the shortcomings on these three questions. The EU is working on a formulation in an effort to reach a compromise”. He also highlighted the need to have on board the two major countries responsible for emissions, China and the US. The EU wants a strict and common surveillance, declaration and verification system for emissions (MRV) together with comparable data but that “the capacity of the different countries is different, so we want flexibility and greater flexibility for LDCs and small island countries to be able to benefit from a transition period to strengthen their capacity”.
According to the Commissioner, the following will be binding: - the long-term target (2050 and 2100); - the balance sheet of commitments (the EU wants a first balance sheet in 2018-19 for a revision of the goals in 2021, whilst the text still includes 2024 for the first balance sheet); rules for responsibility, as well as certain elements for financing. For losses and damages, the text recognises that certain territories are more exposed and the EU is in favour of “developing the Warsaw mechanism (which set out the basis for this recognition, Ed) in order to strengthen prevention, risk management and access to insurance for 400 million people through funding of $300 million”.
Giovanni La Via (EPP, Italy) headed the European Parliament delegation and said that “the negotiations have entered their most difficult phase”. He also said that “the text is short but it has to be fed with ambition”.
The EP is expected to give its consent to the future Treaty of Paris. It is fighting to increase the EU's ambition for 2030 by way of 40% targets for energy efficiency, 40% for renewable energies, in addition to the mitigation target of at least 40%. La Via provided assurances that Parliament would remain mobilised to ensure that international maritime and civil aviation transport were included in the text of the agreement, which is still not yet the case. Some, like the EU, are in favour of mentioning the 1.5° in the text, as a maximum target for average global temperature rises. La Via, however, believed, as did many NGOs, that they needed to provide the means to take action to reach this target and added “without which, it is worthwhile getting the 2° and taking action to get the ceiling respected”.
Cécile Renoir, a French scientist and author of the book, Enterprise on the Climate Challenge pointed out “reaching the 1.5° target, would involve transforming economic models and modes of consumption and getting enterprise to commit to including societal and environmental choices in their strategic choices. Some companies have demanded prices on carbon fuels. They are able to hide behind the absence of carbon fuels to do nothing. This is why we need coalitions, public/private partnerships, to establish the rules for this international challenge”.
Elina Bardram, the head of the EU delegation, is convinced that there are alternatives that could help obtain “a very solid and ambitious agreement”. She said that they now needed to combine these options in an ambitious package that the heads of state asked for, adding, “the 186 INDC are proof of an unprecedented political determination for a paradigm shift to a low carbon economy. The EU has been working flat out to bridge some gaps but there is still a lot to be done”. In response to the NGOs and civil society who have been disappointed by the lack of priority placed on human rights and questions of equality between men and women in the draft on the table, she provided assurances that the EU would fight to make these questions “operational in the text” but which have so far only been mentioned in the preamble to the agreement.
José Ramos-Horta, the former prime minister of Timor Leste and the head of delegation to COP21, is from “a small oil and gas exporting country” which produces “zero greenhouse gas emissions”. He stated: “We are completely without blame! All of our exports go to Japan. Most of our dollars are invested in US treasury bonds”. He highlighted the historic responsibility of the developed countries in global warming, injecting a little dark humour. “The EU, the United States and Japan have used coal for these last 100 years. They can't be blamed because industrialisation has helped everyone: we live longer!” he declared, making clear nonetheless that the rich countries must “make real financial commitments to the fragile states”. He spoke of his “great gratitude” towards the EU for the development aid it provides and especially towards the United Kingdom, “the only G7 country to contribute 0.7% of its GDP to official development assistance”. The Chinese representative Gao Feng underlined that China had launched a South-South Cooperation Fund for climate change worth US$200 billion.
Coalition of the “ambitious”. As early as Wednesday evening before the plenary session, the European Union and representatives of around 100 member countries of the “high ambition coalition” had stepped forward to state, before the press, that the draft text was very short on ambition and that they would block any attempt to have COP 21 deliver a damp squib (see EUROPE 11449). An ambitious agreement, they argued, would be a single package, accompanied by a mechanism for reviewing the ambition, recognition of the proposed objective of keeping the rise in temperature to 1.5 degrees, the importance of a low-carbon future, a strong financial package, including the $100 billion promised for 2020.
“The text isn't ambitious enough. We're going to work hard to improve it. The EU has a strong coalition at the highest level. The alliance of the EU and 79 ACP countries. We are very happy that the United States stands with us. We make up over one hundred countries, big and small, rich and poor. We will not accept an agreement that is not in line with its objective”, warned Canete. Barbara Hendricks, German Federal Environment Minister, laid great emphasis on an ambitious long-term objective and firm reference to the 1.5 degrees target.
Marshall Islands Foreign Affairs Minister Tony de Brum, a member of the coalition, pointed out that, for the least developed countries (LDCs), what was important was that “mitigation efforts were sufficient to guarantee that we can live without major risks and to reduce our adaptation efforts”. The Gambian minister hammered home his point: “There won't be another 'Paris'. We need an agreement that allows the livelihood of millions to be saved, territories to be saved, humanity to be saved”.
Greenpeace International is doubtful that this will be the case. “The United States and the EU are trying to avoid any discussion of compensation when millions of people are already losing their livelihoods”, railed the environmental NGO.
Climate communication is not the guarantee of an ambitious agreement. Among those not forming part of the coalition are China, Brazil, India and South Africa, which currently chairs the G77. South African representative Alf Willis pointed out that the coalition had given no indication of its objectives and that he had not heard it speak up in plenary session for an agreement. When asked by EUROPE if he was joking, Willis answered: “It was not a joke. There were no contact details. What do they stand for? Nobody knows. They just make press statements”. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)