|
|
 |
The negotiations had been expected to result in a comprehensive,
ambitious and effective climate change deal, which was supposed
to be a stronger continuation of the two currently existing
international treaties addressing climate change (the 1992
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
its Kyoto
Protocol, agreed in 1997), and which was supposed "to
shape our common future and that of generations to come, for
the better" (as Yvo de Boer, UNFCCC Executive Secretary
has formulated). Unfortunately the Conference fell short of
these expectations.
Turning off the UN process, the Conference has produced a
so-called 'Copenhagen
Accord', a two-and-a-half page long, vaguely formulated
document, which is not legally binding, contains very few
concrete, tangible facts and was not even formally adopted,
because the majority of the Parties only 'took note' of it.
It lacks real commitment and clear conclusions. Although the
document says that 'the increase in global temperature should
be below 2 degrees Celsius', and that 'deep cuts in global
emissions are required', this does not mean much in practice,
as it contains neither long-term nor mid-term reduction targets,
and the proposed time of peak emissions is not set either.
The only thing the Accord sets regarding these targets is
a timetable for countries to submit details of their emissions
reductions commitments and actions by 31 January 2010.
Nevertheless the Copenhagen Accord forms a basis for negotiations
during 2010 on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation, as it recognizes the crucial role of REDD, and
agrees on the establishment of the REDD+ mechanism. Apart
from REDD, recognition of the key role of ecosystem approach
in all the other adaptation and mitigation measures is lacking.
Furthermore, the Copenhagen Accord states that the collective
commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional
resources to address the needs of developing countries, approaching
USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012, growing to USD 100
billion dollars a year by 2020. Detailed financial support
for developing countries, as well as legally binding emission-reduction
targets globally and in country level are supposed to be developed
in the UNFCCC COP 16 in December 2010, Mexico.
CEEweb has compiled a list of asks to the European Commission
to address in its climate policy and to represent in the COP
16:
- In our understanding, emissions, excessive use of natural
resources and degradation of natural ecosystems are equivalently
important causes of climate change, which means that decreasing
our use of natural resources and restoring a significant part
of Europe's degraded ecosystems should get the same priority
in climate change mitigation as the greenhouse gases. In line
with this, CO2 source and sink potentials of all categories
of Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry activities (LULUCF)
must be included into the aggregate anthropogenic CO2-equivalent
emissions.
- We are worried that in the lack of commitment from industrialized
countries, the EU is about to decrease its mid-term emissions
reduction target from 30% to 20%. Bearing in mind that the
world is rapidly facing a resource-constrained and volatile
future, instead of weakening it, in this situation the EU
should adopt an even more ambitious target of 40% reductions
below 1990 levels by 2020. For long-term target we think that
80% emissions cut should be targeted by 2050, which practically
means that our fossil fuel use should fall near zero. To advance
this process, revision of current support for fossil energy
is necessary, and quotas on fossil energy use should be introduced
and traded in the international market (the current CO2 emission
quotas could serve as a model for this).
- Besides setting ambitious emissions reduction targets, the
EU's total demand for energy should also be limited and gradually
decreased. If we focus only on emission cuts, the savings
due to the various technological solutions can easily be overgrown
by the fast increase of needs, and on the other hand, some
of these solutions seriously endanger biodiversity and eventually
result in even higher emissions (e.g. agrofuels).
- No matter how ambitious emissions targets we adopt, climate
change policy can never work in isolation. It needs to be
part of a wider policy framework that will effectively tackle
the underlying drivers behind climate change as well as biodiversity
loss, define new parameters for growth, change unsustainable
patterns of consumption and production and in the end support
a transition process to a more sustainable economy which recognises
and stays within the physical limits to growth.
- Ecosystem approach should be applied as a guiding principle
in all adaptation measures. If we apply adaptation measures
which are beneficial for the ecosystems and for the people
too, the area will profit a lot in the coming decades. Therefore,
implementing measures of spatial planning and land use that
is safeguarding the coherence, connectivity and functionality
of ecosystems should be one of the most urgent tasks.
- REDD+ regime should be fully developed
and operationalized. It should include conservation and the
enhancement of carbon stocks in existing forests, not just
the sustainable management of forests. Besides tropical forests,
a range of other ecosystems are essential for capturing and
storing carbon. These ecosystems should also be included in
any carbon credit or carbon tax system.
See CEEweb's further recommendations for mitigation, adaptation
and biomass policy here:
See CEEweb's recent activities
in the field of climate change and biodiversity
Further reading
For more information contact Ildikó
Arany, programme coordinator. |
 |
