No time for Siesta in Barcelona

Posted on 02. Nov, 2009 by Ole Seidenberg in E.U., Germany

There we are: In Barcelona, at the very last get-together before the climate finals in Copenhagen. We have a mere 5 days left here and that’s about it. Bearing in mind how much time the opening and closing ceremonies alone took in Bangkok, I almost feel embarrassed to be here as a tracker trying to follow something that is already hard to follow. Most of the really important meetings are behind closed doors - or not even taking place at this very conference.

One of them has certainly been the meeting of heads of states on the European Level last week. The first meeting so far at which concrete numbers have been put on the table. 22-50 billion US-Dollars of public money per year - that is the number that the EU members could agree on would be needed to help developing countries with adaptation and mitigation measures. So far so good - this is indeed the first Annex-1 country/group that came up with concrete numbers at all. But: As always, the devil lies in the detail.

Since we have so little time and so many difficult decisions to take during the upcoming weeks, I will limit this post to the basic three stumbling blocks you need to watch out for:

1) We need new, additional money to be paid to developing countries to cope with mitigation and adaptation. So far, there is no clear wording on this in any of the EU statements, which means: They could basically just add some money to their Development Aid Commitments instead of funding new and additional Climate Change efforts. Sounds cynical? It is. Eat this: Most European Countries have committed to a 0.7% GDP ODA (Official Development Aid) Goal, but on average, they have only achieved 0.4% p.a. so far. If they keep mixing up Adaptation Funds with ODA funds, it will be a dangerous choice for developing countries. Do you stop building hospitals and schools to finance renewable energy and levees?

2) We need more than twice the money of what the EU has mentioned so far. The maximum guess of 50 billion per year by 2020 is far below what scientists and NGOs demand: 110 billion per year by 2020 is the current number. The numbers put on the table last week are the first concrete offer, but they can only be a first bid. To make on thing clear: The EU was talking about what was needed in general - they have not yet stated what share they would be ready to pay.

3) We need a binding agreement. No matter how we call the treaty or protocoll or agreement or whatever might come out of Copenhagen: It needs to be legally binding, not just politically. It needs to be much more than paying lip-service this time. The US has still not ratified the Kyoto-Protocoll and its very unlikely that they ever will.
This leaves us with 2-3 options: Keeping the Kyoto-Protocoll for the G77 and China plus building on a new protocoll to bring in the US and others; building a completely new framework that includes the most important key elements of Kyoto (especially the binding qualities of it) or… loosing all of it and coming up with a rather “greenwashing wishy washy” treaty that doesnt help neither the US & EU, nor the developing world.

One thing is for sure: We cannot afford any more climatepoker and strategic bluffing! As the Spiegel Online reported just a week ago, our former “Climatechancelor” Angela Merkel is about to crash with her strategy of not offering more concrete steps. She was even quoted saying that there should be no offer in Barcelona and none before Copenhagen, as long as the US does not come up with something.

Honestly, by now I think that my video interview with Oxfam’s “big head” Angela Merkel this morning might be the most appropriate source of information at this time. And I hope I am wrong, I hope that “Angie” does have more to offer than nothing…

Tags: barcelona, EU, Finance, Merkel