High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
IEEP/GLOBE
EU
EVENT
–
28
September
2009
Supporting
Europe’s
Parliamentarians
–
Preparing
for
Copenhagen
From
the
7th
to
18th
December,
Copenhagen
will
host
COP15
of
the
UNFCCC
negotiations.
COP15
is
key
to
the
future
of
international
commitments
to
emission
reductions.
This
event
was
intended
as
a
forum
for
MEPs
to
debate
the
major
issues
for
Europe
at
Copenhagen
and
their
role
in
promoting
an
ambitious
deal.
Many
thanks
to
all
who
participated,
in
particular
to
the:
−
Chair
:
Sirpa
Pietikäinen,
MEP
(EPP)
−
External
Speakers
:
Elise
Ford,
Oxfam
International;
Jacqueline
McGlade,
Director
of
the
European
Environment
Agency
−
Formal
Interveners
:
Satu
Hassi,
MEP
(Green);
Fiona
Hall,
MEP
(ALDE),
Theodoros
Skylakakis,
MEP
(EPP);
Dan
Jorgensen,
MEP
(S&D)
−
Moderator
:
David
Baldock,
Director
of
the
Institute
for
European
Environmental
Policy
(IEEP)
Key
Messages
This
was
an
informal
event
but
conclusions
could
be
drawn
on
three
themes:
key
aspects
of
a
successful
international
deal
in
Copenhagen;
putting
Copenhagen
in
context,
by
seeing
COP15
not
in
isolation
but
as
part
of
wider
ongoing
efforts
to
reduce
global
emissions;
and
the
role
of
MEPs
in
promoting
an
ambitious
international
deal.
Important
elements
of
a
successful
international
deal
in
Copenhagen
were
considered
to
be:
•
Adequacy
and
reliability
of
financing
for
developing
countries
–
Financing
is
needed
to
support
mitigation,
adaptation
and
monitoring
efforts.
Oxfam
is
calling
for
€50
billion
per
year
based
on
current
needs;
this
does
not
take
account
of
potential
future
worsening
of
climate
needs.
Some
other
estimates
were
higher.
It
was
noted
that
the
costs
of
adaption
and
supporting
the
developing
world
will
increase
until
there
is
adequate
action
on
mitigation.
The
Commission’s
financing
paper
was
considered
a
good
starting
point,
which
acknowledges
the
scale
of
the
challenge.
However,
from
the
proposal
it
remains
unclear
where
some
of
the
funding
will
originate
from;
proposed
contributions
by
developing
countries
appear
unfair
and
contrary
to
the
Bali
agreement.
Certain
assumptions
were
considered
unrealistic,
for
example,
that
developing
countries
would
be
able
to
make
serious
efficiency
gains
without
the
use
of
public
financing.
•
Offsetting
and
over
reliance
on
reductions
from
developing
countries
–
Proposed
high
levels
of
offsetting
permitted
in
the
EU
could
result
in
significant
challenges.
Firstly,
there
is
a
risk
that
Europe,
and
others,
are
making
use
of
the
‘low
hanging
fruit’
to
meet
their
own
needs
and
leaving
the
developing
countries
to
address
more
expensive
options.
Secondly,
the
reliance
on
offsetting
coupled
with
proposals
to
require
reductions
by
developing
countries
could
mean
that
more
than
50%
of
total
reductions
would
be
delivered
from
developing
countries.
This
seems
perverse
given
their
relative
poverty
and
their
limited
per
capita
contribution
to
emissions.
•
The
adequacy
of
EU
emission
reduction
targets
–
The
20%
and
30%
targets
are
both
insufficient
to
meet
the
scientific
need
and
responsibilities
of
the
EU.
•
The
adequacy
of
global
ambition
–
Modelling
by
the
EEA
suggests
that
when
all
the
current
government
offers
for
Copenhagen
are
put
together
we
are
far
from
achieving
the
2
˚
C
stabilisation
target.
We,
‘therefore,
need
a
quantum
shift
in
our
thinking
or
to
start
to
face
the
consequences’.
•
The
need
for
a
credible
system
for
monitoring
reductions
–
In
the
absence
of
a
clear
monitoring
mechanism
for
emission
reductions
there
is
a
substantive
risk
of
double
counting,
misreporting
of
reductions
and
corruption,
resulting
in
international
commitments
being
unenforceable
or
even
meaningless.
The
need
for
an
effective
global
Carbon
Accounting
system
was
raised
by
the
EEA.
Copenhagen
and
its
place
in
the
world
Whilst
vital,
Copenhagen
negotiations
are
only
one
part
of
the
climate
policy
jigsaw
not
an
end
in
itself.
Before
and
in
response
to
Copenhagen
there
is
a
need
to
continue
to
pursue
climate
action
through
other
avenues
to
deliver
EU
and
global
emission
reductions.
Issues
identified
as
potential
priorities
for
Europe
were:
•
Delivering
existing
commitments
–
at
present
there
are
concerns
that
some
Member
States
do
not
have
the
capacity
or
political
commitment
to
deliver
existing
requirements
under
EU
law
by
2020.
The
Parliament
can
usefully
take
a
role
in
promoting
the
fulfilment
of
requirements,
overseeing
implementation,
securing
adequate
monitoring
and
compliance
systems.
•
Filling
the
gaps
in
EU
policy
‐
There
are
substantive
sectors
yet
to
face
EU
mitigation
targets,
transport
by
road
and
sea
and
agriculture
were
specifically
mentioned.
The
importance
of
forests
and
soils
in
Europe,
and
beyond,
as
carbon
stores
was
also
highlighted.
Europe
could
make
an
impact
on
global
carbon
balances
by
securing
legislation
to
prioritise
the
maintenance
and
improvement
of
these
resources.
•
Capitalising
on
Europe’s
power
as
a
trading
bloc
‐
Beyond
international
negotiations
the
EU
can
have
a
substantive
impact
upon
global
decisions,
not
least
through
setting
ambitious
product
standards.
This
helps
to
deliver
green
jobs
in
Europe
and
beyond,
but
additionally
drives
up
standards
world
wide.
This
is
an
important
area
where
the
Parliament
can
have
a
substantive
impact
on
energy
use,
particularly
using
its
legislative
powers.
•
Redirecting
public
finances
in
Europe
–
At
present
there
remain
substantive
subsidies
in
Europe
(to
the
fossil
fuel
industry)
and
the
EU
budget
does
not
adequately
take
account
of
climate
issues.
The
Parliament
could
make
it
a
priority
to
redress
the
balance
in
order
to
deliver
more
effective
climate
action,
more
use
of
clean
technologies
and
optimise
the
opportunities
offered
by
the
transition
to
a
low
carbon
economy.
What
can
MEPs
do,
now
and
at
the
negotiations,
to
help
promote
an
ambitious
deal?
In
many
ways
the
Parliament’s
ability
to
determine
the
EU
negotiating
mandate
for
Copenhagen
is
now
limited.
However,
MEPs
have
an
important
role
in
securing
a
strong
and
credible
platform
for
the
negotiations,
ensuring
that
Member
States
and
the
international
community
are
aware
that
a
weak
deal
would
be
unacceptable.
•
MEPs
could
give
the
message
that
−
The
European
Parliament
has
not
‘changed
its
mind
on
climate’
–
Following
the
elections
the
Parliament
must
send
a
clear
message
to
Member
States
and
the
international
community
that
climate
remains
a
primary
priority.
Any
Parliamentary
resolution
on
Copenhagen
should
reflect
the
continued
ambition
of
the
Parliament
to
lead
on
this
issue.
−
Active
engagement
in
the
comitology
discussions
and
development
of
follow
up
measures
to
the
package
of
climate
and
energy
legislation
adopted
in
2008
‐
It
is
important
to
demonstrate
that
‘the
Parliament
does
not
simply
legislate
and
move
on’
but
is
concerned
with
the
detail
of
legislation,
which
is
often
crucial
for
success.
−
The
Parliament
as
a
leader
–
Historically
the
Parliament
has
been
fundamental
to
driving
political
aspirations
in
Europe,
for
example,
it
was
MEPs
that
first
called
for
a
30%
reduction
target
(based
on
the
scientific
evidence
at
that
time).
It
may
take
time
to
permeate
policy
but
the
opinions
adopted
in
the
Parliament
are
influential.
−
Making
use
of
the
power
offered
to
the
Parliament
as
a
budgetary
authority
–
The
Parliament
should,
as
soon
as,
possible
adopt
initial
proposals
for
the
future
of
the
EU
budget
reflecting
the
importance
of
climate.
This
would
send
a
strong
signal
of
commitment
to
the
issue.
•
Upcoming
opportunities
–
Prior
to
Copenhagen
−
Making
use
of
the
Commissioner
hearings
–
this
offers
an
opportunity
to
send
a
message
to
the
international
community
about
the
importance
of
climate
issues
to
the
new
Parliament.
−
Perhaps
moving
the
decision
on
carbon
leakage
rules
under
the
EU
ETS
until
after
Copenhagen
–
there
is
a
danger
that
a
carbon
leakage
deal
could
send
a
protectionist
message
to
the
international
community,
additionally
the
scale
of
action
needed
may
alter
in
wake
of
Copenhagen.
•
Opportunities
for
MEPs
at
Copenhagen
−
Engage
with
National
Parliamentarians
–
Understanding
the
detailed
positions
of
third
countries
and
engaging
strategically
with
national
parliamentarians
from
different
delegations
−
Engaging
with
key
NGOs
–
Meeting
with
NGOs
to
understand
their
activities
and
primary
concerns
as
the
negotiations
evolve
−
Informing
the
EU’s
negotiators
–
Helping
to
inform
negotiators
of
the
concerns,
positions
of
and
areas
of
debate
among
the
different
delegations
and
NGO
community
−
Operating
as
a
coordinated
Parliamentary
team
in
Copenhagen
and
making
use
of
the
EEA’s
hospitality
–
During
COP15
the
EEA
has
offered
MEPs
the
opportunity
to
make
use
of
their
office
facilities
and
expertise
based
in
Copenhagen,
please
contact
Johannes
Schilling
for
details
and
to
reserve
space.
Next
Steps
•
Supporting
the
MEP
Delegation
to
Copenhagen
–
Perhaps
develop
a
mechanism
for
civil
society
to
support
the
MEP
delegation
to
Copenhagen
to
ensure
that
MEPs
are
informed
regarding
key
national
governments
contacts
and
NGO
representatives
attending
Copenhagen
–
IEEP
to
discuss
with
partners
•
Finding
out
more
about
−
Modelling
existing
government
commitments
for
Copenhagen
–
please
contact
Johannes
Schilling
−
Oxfam
reports
on
financing
needs
–
attached,
to
discuss
in
detail
please
contact
Elise
Ford
−
Details
on
EU
financing
options
for
Climate
–
see
the
output
from
Project
Catalyst
‐
−
Understanding
carbon
accounting
and
other
monitoring
mechanisms
–
please
contact
Johannes
Schilling
of
the
EEA
for
details
Add a Comment