Brussels, 29/01/2009 (Agence Europe) - the Commission proposal containing its proposals for a global and ambitious climate agreement for Copenhagen (EUROPE 9828) was given a mixed response by all European development and environment NGOs. They were pleased with the intentions but disappointed with the objectives, especially the financial resources envisaged. The WWF said that, “some rhetoric is in the right direction” but they needed concrete commitments and a larger EU role in helping developing nations reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change.
Greenpeace stated that the Commission was proposing a climate rescue plan without putting its hand in its wallet. The NGO welcomes the proposal to provide financial aid for climate protection in developing countries and support for new greenhouse gas emission reducing measures. The NGO regretted, however, that at the last minute, the Commission watered down any mention of the specific amounts for financial aid. “The Commission has come up with a decent blueprint, but has shown it is incapable to put its Euros where its mouth is and support credible amounts of aid to prevent a global climate catastrophe. It is now up to EU environment and finance ministers to improve this proposal back it up with financial commitments that will help prevent serious economic and social disasters caused by climate change," said Joris den Blanken, Greenpeace EU climate and energy policy director. The NGO is calling on industrialised countries to put some flesh on their commitments though the mobilization by 2020 of at least €10bn a year and for the EU alone to commit €25 million in addition to development aid. The NGO calls for the following financial distribution, EUR 40 billion (annually by 2020) to support the development of clean energy;- EUR 30 billion (annually by 2020) to reduce deforestation and its effects on local communities;- EUR 40 billion (annually by 2020) to help communities in the developing world adapt to the effects of climate change.
Emission reduction objectives are also judged too timorous. According to Greenpeace, it would be better if the EU increased the EU to increase its emission reduction target to 40% by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, with at least 30% reductions taking place within the EU, and a commitment to support 10% additional reductions in the developing world. The NGO emphasises that the existing unilateral EU commitment to cut emissions by 20% is not a sufficient contribution to keep global warming below the dangerous threshold of +2°C - a mark which the EU recognises must not be exceeded.
The different NGO member in the Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-Europe) believe that Europe is trying to renege on its responsibilities by leaving it up to the poorest countries in the world to deal with the impact of climate change. Mathias Duwe, the director of CAN-Europe said that, “the EU must regain the level of trust it lost with developing countries from the results of the climate package. This Copenhagen Communication must be approached by Heads of State as the 'climate protection stimulus plan', to reinvigorate the negotiations for a fair and equitable global deal”. Other development NGOs adopted the same tune and Oxfam International warned, “Europe's refusal to commit money to help poor people cope with climate change could derail the chances of reaching a fair climate deal in Copenhagen”.
Drawing on the declarations from Commissioner Stavros Dimas, according to which funding will determine where that works or fails in Copenhagen, Oxfam believes it contradictory for financial commitments that were originally envisaged to be removed from the text. Elise Ford from Oxfam in Brussels declared, “Unless developing countries see hard cash on the table, there is a real danger they will simply walk away. It seems the Commission is pandering to member states' expected opposition to put money on the table - fuelled by their worries about the impact of the recession”. Ms Ford was disappointed that the Commission had not come up with the climate change reduction goals (-20%, -30% by 2020 and financial objectives. The NGO considers that at least €38 billion per year is needed to fund adaptation in developing countries, with Europe owing at least €12bn and this fund being managed by the UN. She regretted that the UN, which should be the governor in chief of the new climate funds, is being marginalised in the Commission's communication. Oxfam International, on the other hand, welcomes the hard line adopted by the Commission when it said rich countries should reduce emissions on a fair basis. Oxfam also argues that the fairest way of sharing the burden is to take historical factors into account (per capital emissions) and wealth. (A.N./trans/rh)