Some hardtalk with Nicola Notaro, European Commission, DG Environmental

During a lecture on “The EU and the future of International Climate Protection” organised by the Institute for European Studies at the VUB I took my chance to go into a hot debate with Nicola Notaro. Notaro is an important architect of the recently approved EU climate and energypackage and came here to talk on it's implications for the EU leaderships' role in international climate negotiations.

Q: “I have first a remark and then a question. You mentionned the positive signal the EU package has given to the negotiations in Poznan but I was also there and I only heared disappointment with IPCC scientists, with developping countries and even outrage among environmental NGOs. It did not give the long hoped boost everybody was waiting for, resulting in a lack of progress in Poznan.

But my question is this. With the current EU package the door stands open for 66% external emission reductions, which means the EU will only have to reduce with another 4% it's domestic emissions from here to 2020. In your presentation you mentionned an interesting principle from the EU. According to the EU treaty article 174 the EU subscribes to the principle of “rectification at source”. Is this principle compatible with 66% outsourcing of rectification?”

A: “The 66% is only an option, it is the maximum possible and of course we hope that countries will try to reduce domestically as much as possible. You have to understand that these outsourced reductions are also real reductions. What the rectification at source concerns: you have a point but maybe decreasing polution at the source of polution, even outside the EU, is still compatible with that principle?”

Q: “It is interesting that you mention that these outsourced reductions are real because in fact they are not. Many studies show that 30 to 50% are non additional reductions. On the 1st of October 2008, 76% of the projects were already build at the time it was decided that they will receive a CDM credit. Recent research in India has shown that not one single banker who lends money to a project developper considers possible CDM income in the future. Now, the EU knows all these problems and they tried hard in Poznan to change the verification by bringing it under UN supervision, because now the verificators are paid by the project developpers. But China refused and the system stayed as it is: defunctional.

But my second question is related to the adaptation fund, considered as the only breakthrough in Poznan. You also highlighted that finaly developping countries have received access to this fund but in fact it is an empty box. Only 1% of the needed money is in there and the EU blocked efforts to increase the amount of money inside. You said yourself that they did so because they think an extra tax on the reduction of emissions would give the wrong incentive and it would be better to tax emissions and use that money for the fund. I totally agree with that but then please explain me why did the EU not adopt the proposal from ENVI to earmark 50% of the auctionning of emissions for mitigation and adaptation in developping countries? That would have been a tax on polution no? Why doesn't the EU practice what it preaches?”

A: On the CDM: we are fighting on 2 fronts at the same time and I don't see a problem with that. The EU package will start in 2012 and we hope that by then the problems with the CDM will be solved. Concerning your question on the earmarking of revenues from the auctioning of emissions: I agree it is not enough yet, it should be 50% but I think that option is still there and it is up to member states to decide how they will use this money. I think that now at least 20% will be used for mitigation and adaptation in Developing Countries, that is at least something.

Q: “A final question, since you are from Italy. Which exceptions did Italy get, on what objective grounds did they get them and why Italy and not other countries?”

A: As I'm not a representative from Italy you will have to ask that question to the Italian Embassy.

What I learned from his presentation is that the EU wants to sell it's package as the world's most progressive, accomplished with remarkable speed and despite the economic crisis. That is all true and we should be happy for these reasons, but does that also mean that the package is able to realise it's goals, is just and sufficient to prevent catastrophic climate change, (NO)taro?