This page was archived on 25/05/2009 and is no longer being updated.
EU Spring Summit Conclusions: Heads of State miss a historic opportunity to regain their title as the leading light on climate change
This meeting of European leaders was supposed to be a critical milestone in the run up to Copenhagen and an opportunity for the EU to hand an olive branch to developing countries.
We hoped the EU would send a strong signal that it was ready to step up to its responsibility in contributing to climate change, by implementing the "polluter pays" principle, and putting concrete figures on the table to support developing countries in addressing climate change.
Poor communities are struggling to cope with the impacts of climate change, and have done the least to cause it. The EU has a moral obligation to provide solid funding in recognition of the fact that this financial support is not charity, but payments for the damage European emissions have and will inflict on developing countries.
Instead, Gordon Brown and his counterparts chose to procrastinate.
Here are the low-lights of what the EU decided at its Spring Summit and why we think it was not good enough.
1. Omitting any reference to the money European countries must provide to developing countries to address climate change.
Our analysis suggests the EU must provide at least €35 billion a year in public finance by 2020 for developing countries to address climate change, and this must be additional to existing aid pledges.
This was a contentious issue, with many within the EU wanting to hold out as part of their negotiating strategy.
As a weak compromise the EU pledged to do more homework on how it would share the costs between themselves, before they put concrete figures forward. This means the EU still has no mandate to negotiate on finance at the forthcoming UN talks in Bonn in April
2. Omitting any reference to the potential ways of raising this revenue.
We urged the EU to make clear its preferences for the different options available for raising the revenue needed to address climate change.
Instead, the EU chose to defer this decision until June, when it would debate in more detail the mechanisms to raise the money.
Without stating its preferences, the EU is in no position to negotiate in the Bonn talks this month, and potentially the consecutive talks in June.
3. Requesting developing countries to contribute to reducing their emissions.
CAFOD feels strongly that developing countries must be supported to take on emissions reductions; they have done the least to cause the problem, but are facing the first and worst impacts and so must be supported to take action.
The EU is not only procrastinating on financial support, but requesting developing countries make emissions reductions without it.
CAFOD is extremely concerned about the EU’s volte-face on climate change. Once the most ambitious negotiating bloc in the UN talks, they are quickly backtracking in the face of economic crisis.
Worryingly their dangerous negotiation strategy – procrastination - will deepen the state of stagnation in the negotiations, and fails to bridge the trust deficit with developing countries, a consequence of industrialised countries failing to take adequate action and leadership on climate change given their historic responsibility.
The UN climate talks in Poznan failed, in part, because the EU came with no mandate.
This year, perhaps the most crucial in determining the fate of millions of people around the world, the EU is risking a repeat of this shameful tactic.
Media: For more information & interviews: Pascale Palmer, ppalmer@cafod.org.uk +44 20 7095 5459, +44 7785 950 585
