President Sarkozy - Press Conference

THE PRESIDENT – (…) We’ve got an accord. Right up to the last moment, the French delegation and I were pondering the right course of action. I’m going to report to you as briefly as possible on the problems, what was adopted and what was committed. (…)

EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT ORGANIZATION

THE PRESIDENT – (…) Europe will propose the creation of a European Environment Organization which will have two responsibilities: monitoring each country’s environmental commitments and the honouring of the financial commitments vis-à-vis the poorest countries. Why at European level? Because we didn’t get it at global level. But Europe is determined to lead the way and this Organization will, of course, be called on to accept the candidature of every country wishing to join in its work. (…)

AQUILA G8/MEF/COPENHAGEN/WEO

Q. – I’d like to know how the commitments China, India and the United States made in Aquila and at the Major Economies Forum differ from what they’ve done here. I can’t see how they do, since they had already recognized the 2º and there’s nothing binding. What is there that’s new?

THE PRESIDENT – To my knowledge, there was no commitment in Aquila. But if you want something else: there was no €100 billion in Aquila, so no commitment could have been made – I mean the €100 billion [for the poor countries] as from 2020. The €30 billion over the first three years wasn’t on the table in Aquila. The commitment to put the emissions reduction targets in the annex wasn’t there at all in Aquila. And there was no commitment, in writing, to meet the objective of limiting the temperature rise to 2º in Aquila either. And then there’s innovative financing: when Bernard Kouchner and I were talking about the possibility of taxing financial transactions, do you remember what people said? There was nothing about that at all. 20% for the forests, to combat deforestation; everyone can clearly see that the best way to fight emissions is to combat deforestation, there was nothing about that in Aquila. Nor about the 40% for Africa. As you know, we were still working on the Millennium Development Goals, with participants voicing scepticism on the issue.

So if you want to ask me what’s missing, it’s clearer to get straight to the point. To my mind, two things are missing: the 50% target in 2050, which we’d have preferred to see kept. It wasn’t possible, from this point of view it’s a disappointment, even though we’re keeping the 80% target. Am I making myself clear here?

And the second disappointment is that there’s no World Environment Organization, even though we took advantage of the meeting to push for the European Environment Organization which is destined to become a world organization. Those are the two points on which we didn’t get satisfaction. (…)

FRANCE/EUROPE/COPENHAGEN ACCORD

Q. – You began the press conference by telling us: “right up to the last moment, I myself, the French delegation were pondering the right course of action”. Did you really contemplate not signing this accord, rejecting it? And, secondly, why do you think that this accord, which doesn’t fully satisfy you, will be more effective than the huge commotion which the European Union would have caused by not signing it?

THE PRESIDENT – So long as we weren’t certain that every country was committing itself on paper to specific emissions reduction targets, we couldn’t sign the accord. We could agree to giving up the 50% cut provided we had the 2º, plus the breakdown of the countries’ reductions. This was precisely the point at issue. Am I making myself understood? The 2º is the general target, with the 50% cut the specific objective required to limit the temperature increase to 2º. We can agree to giving up the 50% emissions reduction in 2050 if we’ve got every country’s goals for immediately cutting emissions; otherwise it isn’t possible – I hope my explanations aren’t too obscure – you see, we can swap a collective target of a 50% cut in 2050 for targets individually allocated, country by country, immediately; by “immediately” I mean between 2010-2015. So long as we weren’t sure of getting that, we couldn’t agree.

Secondly, so long as there was no agreement on innovative financing, I tell you, I wouldn’t have committed France. The ministers, Jean-Louis [Borloo] and I talked about this involving pretty substantial sums, even though it’s the whole international community which is committing itself to it. So the deadlock on these points was lifted only at the last moment, since the Chinese Prime Minister was no longer even at the conference centre.

Q. – And if Europe hadn’t signed?

THE PRESIDENT – Had Europe not signed, we would have found ourselves in the paradoxical situation of it being easier to explain that we wanted all or nothing, but the consequence of refusing to sign was that it would have allowed China and India to exempt themselves from any form of limitation. It might seem paradoxical to take the view that Copenhagen isn’t ambitious enough to constrain Chine and India, but with no Copenhagen accord, there’s nothing. (…)

POLITICAL/LEGALLY-BINDING ACCORD

Q. – This accord seems to be a political rather than legally-binding one since it didn’t prove possible to make a legal one. The countries are going to be left the task of translating the text and this accord into their legislative systems. When is there going to be an international legal text? In Mexico?

THE PRESIDENT – First of all, there was never a question of producing a legally- binding text in Copenhagen, because I don’t know how we’d have been able to prepare a treaty. I told Mr Ban Ki-moon back in September in New York: “Don’t start working on a document several hundred pages long, we’d never be able to get through it”. So it’s always been agreed that Copenhagen was a political accord. For the rest, we, Europe and the United States, are clearly calling for this political document to be transformed into a treaty. This is why France is supporting Germany’s organization of an intermediate summit in Bonn: this is why we have ensured that the terms of reference given to President Calderon for Mexico are as broad as possible; and this is why a lot of us will be asking in Mexico for the Copenhagen political accord to be transformed into a treaty. This is of course encountering opposition – today as I speak – from China and India. (…)

CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION

Q. - (…) You mentioned earlier some organizational problems at the conference, the Danish presidency has very probably, perhaps, something to do with the question you were pondering, but, despite everything, aren’t you drawing deeper lessons for the actual climate negotiating process? There’s something I’m wondering about: basically haven’t we got a sort of circular process: we give negotiators a brief, for example two years ago in Bali, then they crunch the data for two years and, at the end of the two years, the political leaders, you President Sarkozy, the other heads of State, arrive and in a way sanction a failure, the failure of the negotiators and the brief given to them at the outset.

THE PRESIDENT – (…) This obviously poses, you’re absolutely right, the problem of the way the international community is organized. Let’s not attribute more responsibility to the Danish presidency than it deserves. The Danish Prime Minister did everything he could, he did it pretty well in fact, but let’s say that the UN decision-making process…We’ve reached the limits of a system which I’ve consistently criticized – pardon, at any rate since the day I was elected. The role that a number of us have played wasn’t ours to play. We didn’t play it for pleasure, but because things weren’t moving forward. I have a high regard for Mr Ban Ki-moon; I support him; he’s a man who really deserves respect and consideration, but clearly the limitations of the UN process, which consists in never holding votes, in deciding by consensus and remaining the organization it was in the twentieth century, have become evident – yes, and your question is wholly pertinent – it consists in having the right to make progress on every issue only if everyone agrees. Can you imagine this with 192 countries? It’s a process which today is on its last legs.

Secondly, it’s a process which doesn’t give the major emerging countries their rightful place. Think about it: when India has to be asked to play her full part in protecting the planet, India who has hundreds of millions of inhabitants bordering on the most worrying poverty, it’s absolutely normal for Prime Minister Singh to say: “listen, we emit very little carbon, but we’ve got a lot of poverty, we’re afraid you will prevent us from developing”. If India were a member of the Security Council, it would be far easier to get her to shoulder a greater proportion of her responsibilities. Seeing a system like this makes it blindingly obvious.

So the difficulties of organizing this conference demonstrate the limitations of a UN system which is on its last legs. This doesn’t mean the UN is unnecessary, quite the contrary, you’ve clearly understood that we need the UN, but we very clearly need an organization where decisions can be taken, where the decision-making organs are far more representative. It was the same for the G8 which was on its last legs, whereas the G20 can take decisions.

I guarantee you that there won’t be any more conferences meeting under conditions where no one can take decisions and where we have to be in permanent crisis to have a chance of getting a decision worthy of the name. It’s totally clear. Do you realize that to get a night-time meeting, we had to get to crisis point? Several times, we were completely deadlocked. Because when every country has a say on minor as well as major issues, how do you take decisions? It means you give the country which wants to hold things up absolutely gigantic power, because it knows perfectly well that decisions are by consensus and so it can block things. But in fact the problem goes far beyond that: there was the issue of the various delegations’ representation. Here too, the UN system where a country can have itself represented by its ambassador or some other senior official, whilst others are represented by their countries’ highest elected authority isn’t possible! In the G20, heads of State and governments are there in an official capacity. In the new EU institutional system we’ve decided that we wouldn’t send representatives to the European Council. Heads of State and governments themselves attend European Council meetings. Here in the UN process, you can be represented by an ambassador. For example, we had here the ambassador of Sudan who addressed the meeting many times – as was in fact his right – alongside the President of the United States and Chancellor Merkel. We haven’t all got the same level of political responsibility and ability to take decisions.

The system is on its last legs! We want it changed. Moreover, under these conditions it’s a miracle that we’ve nevertheless managed to come up with an accord worthy of the name – we can regret that it isn’t more ambitious, but it’s an accord which indisputably moves things on. So the system has to change and will change.

Thank you for asking this question. I don’t know if my argument has convinced you; and this goes far beyond Mr Ramussen who did his level best, under extremely difficult conditions, you understand, but the problem lies in the process itself. The G20 was set up because the other fora weren’t working well enough. Here too, the issue goes beyond Mr Ban Ki-moon. It’s simply that the international community has changed and has to give itself modern rules to take decisions and responsibility for its choices. (…).

President Sarkozy and Mr Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia

France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, launch today an appeal to all Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adopt an ambitious agreement on 18 December limiting the increase of temperatures to 2°C above preindustrial levels, as recommended by the IPCC, and ensuring that vulnerable countries will receive adequate financing to face the challenge.

This agreement will be applicable immediately. It will be translated into a legal international instrument as early as possible in 2010. The Copenhagen accord must seek efficiency, as well as fairness and equity.

Therefore, France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, call for:

- the halving of global CO2 emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. This implies, according to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, that developed countries commit to reducing their emissions by 80% at least by 2050 and to adopting coherent and comparable mid-term objectives; and that the most advanced developing countries adopt ambitious low-carbon growth plans and actions aimed at yielding a significant deviation of CO2 emissions compared to “business as usual” scenarios and compatible with the recommendations made by the IPCC.

- the full transparency of commitments taken by developed countries and of the actions adopted by developing countries.

- the adoption of a “fast-start” fund of $10 billion per year covering the next three years, 2010, 2011 and 2012. It will be dedicated to adaptation and mitigation actions, including the fight against deforestation, in developing countries, mainly the poor and vulnerable ones. 40% of the fund should be dedicated to adaptation in Africa. 20% of it should be dedicated to early action on “REDD+”, in order to reach the objective of halving deforestation by 2020 and halting it by 2030. A high-level group, mandated by the UNFCCC, composed of developed and developing countries’ experts will work out details as soon as possible, with a view to launching the fund by the next G20 Summit in Canada after consideration and approval by the UNFCCC.

- a strong commitment on long-term public financing based on developing countries’ needs beyond 2012. Predictable and additional finance must be made available from 2013. France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, believe that various innovative financing mechanisms are key to ensuring the predictability and sustainability of international public efforts. They call, in particular, for the creation of a tax on international financial transactions and are considering other sources such as taxes on sea freight or air transport. Those mechanisms will mainly be dedicated to actions in poor and vulnerable countries, particularly in Africa, least developed countries, small island States and other developing countries with a low per-capita income, according to a plan for climate justice. A high-level group composed of developed and developing countries’ experts will bring forward recommendations, with a preliminary report to be presented no later than the next G20 summit in Canada, and its final report no later than the November 2010 G20 summit in Korea. The report will be submitted for consideration and approval by the UNFCCC.

Long-term financing needs for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries are estimated, at least, at €50 billion by 2015 and €100 billion by 2020. Beyond public financing, France and Ethiopia, representing Africa, encourage the development of carbon markets, which will be a major source of capital flows and investments between the North and the South.

- an ambitious reform of global governance. The Copenhagen Conference offers a historic opportunity to launch a process leading to the establishment of a World Environment Organization. It will ensure that the environment, sustainable development and the fight against climate change remain a top priority in the international agenda beyond COP 15. And it will be a step forward in adapting international governance to twenty-first century challenges and realities./.

Source of English text: Elysée website.

Brussels, 11 December 2009

France and UK are working closely together on climate change

We agreed:

To work for an ambitious deal in Copenhagen, consistent with a maximum global warming of two degrees, to which all parties contribute, and which enables the EU to reduce its emissions by 30% by 2020.

To enable immediate implementation of the Copenhagen agreement we support the establishment of a “fast start” launch fund for 2010-12 which achieves $10 billion annually in 2012. A large amount of this should go to adaptation, especially in Africa, small island states and other poor and vulnerable countries. France and the UK will each contribute their fair share among the advanced economies – around €400 million ($600 million) a year. The UK is prepared to go further and contribute up to $800 million a year in the light of offers from others.

To ensure predictable and additional finance in the medium term to 2020 and beyond, we should make use of innovative financing mechanisms, such as the use of revenues from a global financial transactions tax and the reduction of aviation and maritime emissions and the auctioning of national emissions permits. We will work together on this.

Rainforest countries need the security of finance now and for the coming years. We believe around 20% of early finance should be allocated to forest protection. We want the Copenhagen agreement to agree a reduction in deforestation of 25% by 2015, leading to a 50% reduction in 2020 and a halt in 2030. The developed world should pay for the majority of this, supporting developing countries’ own efforts.

To this end we will work with developed countries and rainforest nations over the next few days to deliver an equitable and effective agreement on forest finance and governance. We will jointly attend a conference of rainforest countries of the Congo basin next week in Paris.

That long term financial support is needed to assist developing countries meet the costs of mitigation and adaptation, estimated at around €100 billion, in 2020.

We are determined that Copenhagen agrees to put in place stronger global environmental governance.

There is much at stake at Copenhagen. We will be doing all in our power to reach the ambitious and comprehensive global agreement the world needs.

Source of English text: 10 Downing Street website

President Sarkozy meets with the non-governmental organizations

President Sarkozy had a meeting today at the Elysée to discuss the Copenhagen conference with the main French non-governmental organizations and leading figures engaged in the fight against climate change.

In the presence of M. Jean-Louis Borloo, Ministre d’Etat, Minister for Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Marine Affairs, Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, and Mme Chantal Jouanno, Minister of State responsible for Ecology, the Head of State reaffirmed the need in Copenhagen to come up with a political agreement commensurate with the challenges of climate change and designed to take the form of an international binding agreement as swiftly as possible.

The President welcomed the international groundswell in support of climate action since the publication of the joint Franco-Brazilian position last month. The presence in Copenhagen of virtually all the world’s heads of State provides a historic opportunity to conclude the agreement enabling the average global temperature rise to be limited to 2ºC by 2050.

The Head of State renewed France’s commitment to reduce her CO2 emissions, to which the Grenelle Environment Forum and carbon tax will make a substantial contribution. France has undertaken to do the utmost to ensure that the conditions for a 30% reduction in European Union emissions are fulfilled as soon as possible.

President Sarkozy also reiterated his determination that the Copenhagen agreement provide for the creation of a World Environment Organization (WEO) with a remit to monitor the preparation of the future treaty and check that every country fulfils its commitments. Lastly, for the Head of State, the final Copenhagen agreement will have to include a major funding stream to finance the fight against climate change in the poor countries, with contributions based on an international levy on financial transactions.

President Sarkozy concluded by reiterating that he firmly believed in a regular frank dialogue with civil society. But any dialogue has of necessity to have rules. Consequently, he deemed the recent intrusion of an NGO in the National Assembly a wholly unacceptable initiative.

Climate change is a global challenge which requires a response that is global, immediate and guided by principles of justice and equity.

This is the response that is at stake at the Copenhagen Summit and the decision announced by India gives an important signal at a time when the deliberations and negotiations are just getting underway.

This commitment is all the more encouraging given that India is burdened with particular constraints associated with its development and has begun a determined fight against poverty.

Given these circumstances, it is vital that the Copenhagen Summit lead to an agreement that forms the basis of a new model for sustainable development.

France reaffirms its determination to work with India and all of its partners in order to put together an ambitious, just and balanced agreement in Copenhagen, based on the Franco-Brazilian agreement.

Paris, December 4, 2009

The President of the Republic welcomes with a great deal of satisfaction the announcement by President Obama that he will attend the Copenhagen Summit on December 18. He is delighted by this decision which demonstrates the importance the United States attaches to the success of this Climate Conference.

The President of the Republic spoke with President Obama at the beginning of the week and hopes, more than ever, that all leaders will attend the Copenhagen Summit, so that the ambitious commitments needed to protect the planet and future generations can be made together.

Q. – Beijing is limiting the growth of its CO2 emissions, but doesn’t envisage reducing them in absolute terms. That’s not going to reassure the US Congress…

THE MINISTER – It’s the first time our Chinese friends have put any figures on their commitments. You have to understand that China’s aim is to lower her carbon intensity. I’ve no doubt that the Chinese government wants to move towards a lower-carbon development model. Their eleventh [five-year] plan, coming to an end soon, shows that they have embarked on this path and the twelfth plan will show this even more. The main thing is for all the countries to say to themselves: we’re all doing our bit.

Q. – What do you think about the US emission reduction targets?

THE MINISTER – You mustn’t overrate the figures the White House has just put forward. They are below what was forecast at the Bali climate conference and below the scientists’ recommendations, i.e. a 25-40% cut in industrialized countries’ emissions. But President Obama also talked about 2030. The United States needs some flexibility to catch up. Does this have to take the form of an adapted figure or extra time? Aside from that, the American President has announced that he will come to the Danish capital on 9 December. The date is odd. The other heads of State and government will be there on 17 and 18 December – among them Nicolas Sarkozy, President Lula and the Chinese Prime Minister, who has confirmed this to me.

Q. – Are you optimistic for the Copenhagen conference?

THE MINISTER – Today, confidence has returned. Copenhagen can and must succeed. We can achieve a specific political agreement, which commits, which contains figures country by country. Four major points will have to figure in it: the countries which were in the Kyoto Protocol remain and make new commitments; the Americans are granted flexibility so that they can catch up; the emerging countries make their emissions curves less steep than their growth curves; finally, financial aid is granted to the most vulnerable countries so they can adapt. When it comes to the practicalities of monitoring each country’s commitments, we’ll very probably need a little more time.

Q. – A political agreement, not a binding treaty?

THE MINISTER – Talking about a treaty isn’t such a good idea. With Kyoto, we see this clearly. While a country like France honours its commitments, a number of others don’t. What matters is for everyone to see just how important it is to move towards a low carbon economy and undertake clear commitments. France, like Europe, can achieve a 30-32% cut by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.

JUSTICE-CLIMATE PLAN

Q. – How does your Justice-Climate plan fit into Copenhagen?

THE MINISTER – To help the most vulnerable countries adapt to global warming, get access to energy, develop renewable energies and fight deforestation, we must guarantee part of the financial aid which will have to go to them. They must have $30-32 billion a year which can come, for example, from a 0.01% levy on financial transactions. We can’t just rely on the carbon market and private money. It isn’t simply a moral issue, it’s in the whole world’s interest.

Source : La Tribune [French]

Discussions focused mainly on the results of the COP15 and the organization of its high-level segment. Emissions-control objectives were announced by several developing countries (Brazil, Indonesia and South Korea, among others), testifying to the desire of all the ministers in attendance to make Copenhagen a success, despite some differences.

French minister Jean-Louis Borloo presented the climate-justice plan and held talks with several partners on the sidelines of the meeting.

source:  French Ministry for Ecology, Energy and Sustainable Development [French]
photo: nagillum

There is now less than a month to Copenhagen. We want, and the world needs, a global deal in Copenhagen that is ambitious and fair. We want this because climate change is not just a planetary emergency but a human emergency. The poorest people are those who are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change. The test we face in December at Copenhagen is a test of our ability to rise to a challenge recognized to be a defining one for our generation.

Unchecked, climate change could lead to a 4 degree average rise in global temperature which poses huge consequences for foreign policy. It could mean 4 billion people would regularly suffer from severe water shortages in 2080. It could stimulate mass migration of a further 150 to 200 million people. It could accentuate areas of pre-existing conflict like in the Middle East where currently 5% of the world’s population is drawing on only 1% of the world’s water.

That is why we, the Foreign Ministers of the UK, Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Finland and Spain reaffirm our commitment to working towards a successful deal in Copenhagen that will limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees and provide for immediate action to combat global warming. The deal should also provide support to developing countries to help them cope with climate change. We will ensure that the European Union continues to lead the way in showing ambition, urging others to follow our approach. We will continue to engage personally to ensure climate change and that the challenges it poses are prioritized on the international stage and that we and the global community honour our responsibility to support countries that will be hardest hit by the effects of a changing climate.

source : the French version of this article was published in the “Libération” newspaper on 16 November.

The main results were:

• With respect to long-term objectives (shared vision): the emergence of key elements (maximum temperature increases, the level of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, emissions peak, reduction objectives), the review process for long-term objectives, and the suitability of the means implemented to achieve this objective.

• With respect to legal aspects: a beginning of discussions on the “legal” form of future instrument(s) to be adopted in Copenhagen

• With respect to future objectives of the developed countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol: a grouping of the objectives on gas emission reductions on the order of 16% to 23%, compared with 1990 levels (outside of the United States), with specific details on the respective shares of forests and compensation mechanisms in these objectives, and on the challenges linked to the starting levels of the Protocol’s upcoming commitment period.

• With respect to the mechanism to be established to facilitate national emissions reduction efforts by developing countries: constructive exchanges took place and a certain consensus was achieved, reflecting the EU’s positions quite well.

• With respect to adaptation: a strengthening in capacities, forest and technology transfers, progress in the negotiations

• With respect to organizing work for Copenhagen: informal meetings led to conclusions that call for attaching new versions of the Barcelona non-papers to the minutes of the session while leaving the old versions of the negotiating text (INF.1 and INF.2) on the table.

The French delegation included representatives of the following ministries—environment, energy, sustainable development, economy and finance, foreign and European affairs, agriculture—as well as various experts. Barcelona also provided an opportunity to support Africa in its resolve to obtain an ambitious agreement and, especially, to clearly explain that the countries of the Kyoto Protocol cannot agree on figures without U.S. participation.

source :  French Ministry for Ecology, Energy and Sustainable Development
translation : French Embassy in Washington