Stenograma dezbaterilor

Luni, 20 octombrie 2008 - Strasbourg

20. Crearea unei Alianţe mondiale împotriva schimbărilor climatice între Uniunea Europeană şi ţările sărace în curs de dezvoltare (prezentare succintă)

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejnym punktem porządku dziennego jest krótka prezentacja sprawozdania sporządzonego przez Andersa Wijkmana w imieniu Komisji Rozwoju w sprawie stworzenia światowego sojuszu na rzecz przeciwdziałania zmianom klimatycznym pomiędzy Unią Europejską a ubogimi krajami rozwijającymi się, najbardziej narażonymi na skutki zmian klimatycznych (2008/2131(INI)) (A6-0366/2008).

  Anders Wijkman, rapporteur. − Mr President, this report is a response to the Global Climate Change Alliance, which was launched by the European Commission towards the end of last year. Basically, the Global Climate Change Alliance is a very good initiative. It is, first and foremost, a recognition that low-income countries will be seriously at risk because of climate change.

It is an irony that, only eight years ago, the Millennium Development Goals were agreed upon in New York. There was hardly any mention of climate change, yet it was obvious – already then – that many low-income countries would suffer badly from the adverse effects of climate change.

The way we are organised, however, in national organisations, in governments etc. – climate change on its track, development cooperation on another track – was already a real impediment or hindrance towards fully recognising the threat of climate change to development and poverty reduction.

The challenge is, of course, great. In order to assist low-income countries in adaptation and risk reduction and in mitigation efforts, and to look for synergies between the two, there must be a special focus on deforestation and then, finally and most importantly, implementing all these concerns in the context of development planning and poverty reduction.

It is crucial that we do not end up with a series of stand-alone adaptation projects. Rather, we have to mainstream adaptation and risk reduction into development cooperation.

The big question when we discussed this in the Committee on Development was how to finance this. The Commission proposal entails only EUR 60 million. It is a drop in the ocean. Nobody knows how much adaptation risk reduction will cost; nobody knows what technological cooperation will cost in terms of mitigation. The World Bank, Oxfam, UNDP and others have come up with estimates ranging between USD 10 billion and, I would say, USD 100 billion yearly. Some measures need not cost more: if you do development planning and poverty reduction strategies taking into account the adverse effects of climate change at the beginning, you may not end up with increased costs. But in many areas we know that there will be additional costs. Farming practices, risk reduction for extreme weather events, sea level rise, health measures: you name it.

The question is: where will the extra or additional funding come from? In the report we make a few suggestions. One of them, quite naturally, is to use some of the revenue from the expected auctioning of emission permits in the future. It is very important to somehow earmark funding for developing countries in this context.

Another suggestion is that Member States should support the Commission initiative and not embark on their own initiatives. This is a new area, where it makes sense to pool resources.

Finally, all that we do in this area must be seen in the context of next year’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen. Proactive action from Annex 1 countries – in particular the EU – in this field is crucial for a global deal to be struck.

The Development report deals with the issues mentioned – and many others – in the spirit of supporting the European Commission initiative and with the primary aim of strengthening it, both in terms of substance and finance.

  Joe Borg, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I welcome Mr Wijkman’s report and thank him for his continuing support for the Global Climate Change Alliance. Overall we believe that the report highlights the right issues and identifies the key challenges the international community currently faces in providing support to climate change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. We appreciate, in particular, the report’s proposals, firstly to develop the Global Climate Change Alliance into a clearing house for Member State initiatives. We agree that current efforts to assist developing countries in this important area are fragmented and not well coordinated, and do not correspond to the Paris principles on aid effectiveness, to which all EU Member States have signed up.

Secondly, the proposal to set a long-term financing goal for the GCCA. It is pivotal, however, that EU Member States fully align themselves to this initiative and make increased ODA commitments and innovative sources of financing available for the GCCA. The financing goal set by the European Commission alone would be meaningless.

Finally, the proposal to spend part of the expected revenues from auctioning emission rights within the EU emissions trading scheme on funding for the GCCA and other climate change measures in developing countries. We need – particularly in the current context – continued European Parliament support in the realisation of these proposals, in particular through engagement with decision-makers at Member State level.

The report highlights a number of points for further clarification by the Commission, who would respond, in particular, on the distinct added value of the GCCA. Overall the GCCA is intended as a key component of the European Union’s climate change policy. Traditionally, this policy has been focused on mitigation inside and outside the Union. The Green Paper/White Paper process now deals primarily with adaptation inside the Union. The GCCA represents the external dimension of our adaptation efforts. Besides, it is important to underline the fact that the international community needs to arrive at the conclusion of a global climate change agreement at Copenhagen in December 2009, so as to avoid a gap between the Kyoto Protocol and the follow-up agreement. Developing countries will only enter such an agreement if adaptation is specifically considered. The European Union must also assume its leadership role in this context, and the GCCA is a vehicle to demonstrate our commitment.

Mr Wijkman’s report could have made stronger reference to this political imperative. Furthermore, the European Union is the largest provider of development assistance. Climate change, clearly, is a threat to development. The GCCA aims at placing climate change adaptation firmly within EU development policy.

Finally, the GCCA would like to employ different means in developing climate-related assistance, away from project funding and towards programme-based approaches. We believe that resilience to climate change can only be built effectively in this way. The Commission has already entered into the initial implementation stage of the Global Climate Change Alliance. In doing so, it is paying due attention to the report’s proposals, in particular as regards close involvement of partner country representatives and close coordination with other, related bi- and multiannual, multilateral initiatives.

Finally, the Commission recognises the need for better mainstreaming of climate change into its own aid programmes, in close coordination with the partner countries and development partners at country level. Ongoing work at the OECD on the development of guidelines for mainstreaming adaptation into development cooperation will assist us in these efforts.

  Przewodniczący. − To podsumowuje punkt obrad.

Głosowanie odbędzie się we wtorek, 21 października 2008 r.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 142)

  Mihaela Popa (PPE-DE), în scris. – Aceasta initiativa este justificata in contextul responsabilitatii asumate de catre Uniunea Europeana fata de tarile in curs de dezvoltare, preocupare sustinuta de faptul ca Uniunea Europeana este cel mai mare donator mondial in domeniul umanitar.

In acest sens, este important sa evitam suprapunerea initiativelor pe care le avem in legatura cu tarile din lumea a treia, lansate la nivel comunitar sau la nivelul statelor membre.

Consider ca este esential ca preocuparea pentru schimbarile climatice sa nu fie un angajament punctual, ci trebuie tinut cont de importanta actiunilor preventive in toate demersurile UE si in special in cele legate de ajutorul pentru dezvoltare.

Nu in ultimul rand, cred ca actiunile de prevenire trebuie sa primeze, mai mult decat actiunile legate de crizele umanitare, avand in vedere costurile mult mai mari ale reconstructiei in urma dezastrelor.

Dincolo de solidaritate, Uniunea Europeana trebuie sa-si dovedeasca responsabilitatea fata de alte zone ale lumii, iar Alianta Mondiala impotriva Schimbarilor Climatice este un pas important in acest sens.

  Pierre Schapira (PSE), par écrit. – L'Alliance mondiale contre le changement climatique doit devenir un instrument efficace qui permette aux pays les plus pauvres de s'adapter aux conséquences de ce phénomène, dont ils sont les premières victimes.

Les amendements PSE déposés en Commission ont permis d'améliorer l'excellent travail du rapporteur.

Concernant le financement de l'Alliance, le PSE regrette, comme le rapporteur, la faiblesse du montant annuel prévu par la Commission Européenne.

Par ailleurs, nous déplorons le recours quasi-systématique au FED pour financer de nouvelles initiatives telles que l'Alliance. Son utilisation doit être strictement contrôlée, afin qu'elle serve bien à financer des actions de développement, et que son recours soit limité à la première année de mise en œuvre de l'Alliance. La Commission doit donc respecter son engagement à trouver des financements additionnels pour l'Alliance.

Le PSE s'est aussi prononcé pour l'établissement d'un lien étroit entre le changement climatique et la crise alimentaire actuelle. L'Alliance doit proposer des pistes concrètes dans ce sens, comme la création de ceintures vertes autour des villes du Sud pour promouvoir l'agriculture vivrière.

Enfin, nous avons demandé que soient élaborés des critères environnementaux, sociaux et économiques pour la production d'agrocarburants, et que la sécurité alimentaire soit garantie avant de promouvoir l’agriculture d’exportation.