By Caroline Azad

The European Parliament was represented at December’s Copenhagen Climate Conference by an official delegation. Since the Lisbon Treaty’s enforcement last December, the European Parliament’s consent is required for all International treaties. Before the conference began, Jo Leinen, Chairman of the European delegation, spoke to Caroline Azad about the difficulty of reaching meaningful solutions and Europe’s aims at Copenhagen.

Caroline Azad (CA): Many expert opinions, which are reported in the media, seem sceptical about the potential success of the Copenhagen Summit. The main reasons cited for such views are the lack of concrete solutions from major, industrialised, countries, as well as the financing question for the infrastructures of developing countries.

On 30th October last year, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said, in a press conference: “We can look the rest of the world in the eye and say we, Europeans, we have done our job. We are ready for Copenhagen…we have a clear, ambitious and unified EU message on climate finance…we are ready to engage.”

Do you perceive a contradiction between Barroso’s statement and the arguments of the experts?

Jo Leinen (JL): If you look at the global developments in climate policies, we Europeans are well ahead of other industrialised countries. We have a legally binding climate protection package with a cross-border carbon market. That is unique. On the other hand, climate scientists tell us that we have to go even further with our reduction commitments and solutions for climate protection. That means that we have to do more than the others.

CA: Does the European Union have a unified plan and concrete solutions?

JL: Yes, the European Union has a unified position on nearly all questions of climate policy. We have our reduction commitments; we have concepts how to protect forests and how to set up adaptation frameworks. The Council of Ministers has tabled a negotiation mandate and the European Parliament has decided on a resolution. Both documents are very similar in their aim.

The only place where you can find a major difference between the Council and the Parliament is in the question of financing. We say that the EU should promise €30 billion (£26 billion) per year by 2020, in order to finance mitigation and adaptation. The member states did not agree on a concrete number. But we are heading in the same direction.

CA: How would you explain the lack of concrete strategies between the member states?

JL: I do not see a major difference in the positions of member states. The question of financing is difficult, but that has always been the case with regard to budgetary questions. The financial issues are the questions where we have to come up with a burden-sharing concept. We will establish some sort of solidarity mechanism that remains oriented on per capita emissions.

CA: Do you think first-world countries should be responsible for financing adaptation in developing countries?

JL: Of course, the industrialised world has a responsibility for climate change and therefore also for adaptation. If we follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle to the end, then we have to clean up the mess we created from dumping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere for so many years. But adaptation is not only about financing. We have to assist the most affected countries in establishing adaptation strategies and by presenting solutions for how to adapt to a changing environment.

Adding to that, capacity building is an important issue. Only if people know how to help themselves, they can use our financial aid in a sensible manner. Adaptation is more than just financing. But without financing, of course, adaptation cannot work.

CA: How would you define what is required of developing countries? Are there huge differences in relation to their behaviour during the Kyoto era?

JL: We can observe two global trends which lead to the difficult situation we are facing in Copenhagen. The first trend, or observation, tells us that developing countries will be affected more dramatically than the rest of the world. Climate change is in some way unfair. It means that those who are not responsible will be those who suffer most. The second trend is the rising economic power of emerging economies.

If you look at China, India, Brazil and some other countries, they are following us in developing high-carbon-economies. We have to tell them: if you keep going like that, all our efforts in climate protection will not be enough to stop global warming. They have to change their behaviour as well. Finding a global deal in Copenhagen should therefore be in the interest of all parties involved.

CA: How do you perceive the public reaction to the Copenhagen Summit, in terms of its engagement, confidence and appeal?

JL: It is really astonishing how many people are engaged in the process towards Copenhagen. This a great moment for listening to our civil societies and acting according to what people think our future should look like. We should take that development seriously and use it to put pressure on governments to sign an agreement that is for the benefit of all.

CA: What are you expecting from the Copenhagen Summit?

JL: We still hope for a legally binding agreement in Copenhagen. Although I know that some countries have difficulties in committing themselves internationally to these targets, it should not be an excuse for non-action.

In the worst case, there will be a politically binding agreement in Copenhagen that will be filled with more substance in the first couple of months of 2010 and than ratified by the parties later.

CA: What role will the European Parliament’s delegation play in the Copenhagen Summit?

JL: Since the Lisbon Treaty is providing us with more rights in international negotiations, we will push for a greater involvement in the negotiating process. We will be informed by the Commission and the Swedish Presidency at all stages of the negotiations, and in the end, the European Parliament has to ratify the agreement. During the negotiations, we will make clear that the EU will go for its 30 per cent targets when all other parties agree on a new treaty, and we will make clear that the EU still has the leadership in climate protection and is willing to stay a frontrunner.

The promotion of clean growth and the initiative for another industrial revolution towards smart green technologies will be important for my delegation during informal talks with other delegations from around the world.