Post-Copenhagen

It is no secret that we would have wished for a better deal in Copenhagen. The deal the world finally could agree on will not solve the climate issue. There was a lack of political will from some parts and with the current structure of the climate convention, where consenus is needed to come to a decision, the possibilities to delay the discussions are noticeable. Together with several African countries and small island states, the EU pushed for a more ambitious outcome, but those with the lowest ambitions set the agenda.

Among the positive results from Copenhagen is the recognition of the two degree target. The commitment to pay for adaptation and mitigation in the developing countries is also important. The commitment from the industrialized countries amounts to about 30 billion dollars for the period 2010-2012, of which the EU and Japan will contribute with more than 10 billion dollars each, while the US puts in 3,6 billion dollars.

The commitments to emissions reductions, however, remain too weak and no long-term goal is set. Many unclear points remain, for example the fundamental issue how we could come to a new legally binding agreement for those not included in the Kyoto protocol.

It is also disturbing that the deal does not clearly state that we now strive for a global, legally binding agreement during 2010. A lot of work remains to be done if we are to build on this deal and reach an agreement that would put the two degree target within reach.

Climate talks

The climate conference in Copenhagen has started Negotiations will be going on this week and next in different formations in order to make progress in the different issues we strive to come to an agreement on, such as emission reductions and financing. Even though the positions of the important actors differ more than one would hope – we have not only different ambitions, but even different ways of calculating our ambitions – it is pleasing that more than one hundred heads of states and governments, including Barack Obama, has declared their intention to participate.

For my own part, I chaired my last General Affairs Council meeting on monday. We had extensive discussions on enlargement, and it is obvious that the EU can continue to help European integration. The discussions were long and difficult, especially on Turkey and on FYROM, but in the end we reached a conclusion in a positive spirit. The long discussions forced us to cancel the discussions I had planed on crises and disaster management. But we have also prepared for the European Council later this week, where the Stockholm Programme will be adopted and important issues such as the EU 2020 strategy for growth and jobs as well as exit strategies and financial regulation will be addressed in the light of the economic crisis.

We also talked about climate, as the European Council will review the EU position in the ongoing negotiations on its meeting. The EU has a strong, common position in the negotiations, were we are pushing for an agreement that would put the two degree target within reach. Hopefully we can also present a figure for the fast-start financing of climate adoptation the coming three years.

Will it be possible to reach a deal on the climate in December?

With the conference in Copenhagen just a month away, a good deal of the efforts of the Swedish Presidency lie on preparing the climate issue. Last week, Prime Minister Reinfeldt represented the Swedish Presidency at the EU-USA and EU-India summit. That the US must be ready to take its responsibility if we are to reach a deal on the climate is a plain fact, but it is also important that the fight against global warming includes developing countries. It is therefore pleasing that the EU-India summit resulted in an agreement on support of the two degree target, even though this is a domestically sensitive issue in India.

Climate negotiations have also been going on in Barcelona, in a last negotiation meeting in front of Copenhagen. Progress was made on technical issues and there were good discussions, leading to a greater level of understanding. But the politically sensitive issues were not solved. If we are to reach a deal in Copenhagen, a greater will to negotiate is needed. The two core issues are the level of the emission reductions and the financing of the necessery measures, and we need to move forward in these areas. The EU has committed itself to reduce its emissions with 30 % if other countries make comparable commitments. Now, the US and other industrialized countries must step up their ambitions to reduce emissions, and the more advanced developing countries must make adequate commitments according to their respectively capabilities and responsibilities.

Regarding financing, the EU has expressed its support for the European Commissions estimate that costs in developing countries could amount to 100 billion euro annually by 2020. This issue was also raised at the meeting of the G20 finance ministers, but regrettably, they were unable to make the needed progress. It is now up to the US and other industrialized countries to also present a credible financing of the needs of the developing countries.

The Swedish Presidency continues with its work, and I am glad that the EU acts as the well-needed leader. The basic success story of the EU is that cooperation works. This is a lesson that now must be learnt by the rest of the world, too.