COMMISSION PERSPECTIVES ON UNFCCC, MEF, AND TROIKA VISIT TO

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 001172 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON EIND ENRG EUN EWWT KGHG SENV TPHY TRGY TSPL SUBJECT: COMMISSION PERSPECTIVES ON UNFCCC, MEF, AND TROIKA VISIT TO WASHINGTON BRUSSELS 00001172 001.2 OF 002 1.(SBU) This is a corrected version of BRUSSELS 1165 to correct for formatting. ¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY. Artur Runge-Metzger, Head of Unit for International Climate Negotiations in the European Commission's Directorate General for Environment, said that emissions targets for developed and developing countries, including discussions of comparability, and financing will be the key topics during the European Union's "Troika" visit to Washington on August 24-25. Separately, Runge-Metzger feels there is a greater sense of urgency in the UN climate negotiations, but that developing countries remain reluctant to engage. The Major Economies Forum (MEF),he explained, is an ideal setting to break through some of these differences. END SUMMARY. ¶3. (SBU) Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, representing the Presidency of the EU; Spanish State Secretary for Environment Teresa Ribera Rodriguez, representing the next Presidency of the EU; and Jos Delbeke, Deputy Director General for Environment in the European Commission, will travel to Washington on August 24-25 to meet with key U.S. policy-makers on climate change, including SECC Todd Stern and Deputy National Security Advisor Michael Froman. Runge-Metzger, speaking on behalf of Delbeke and the Commission, said to USEU EconOff that there will be five key topics for coverage during the Troika: -- What is achievable in Copenhagen, especially noting the late date? -- How can success be orchestrated in Copenhagen, taking into account the various forums, such as the MEF, G-20, and the Greenland Dialogue? -- How can the 2 degree C limit in temperature rise be addressed, focusing on various pathways to get there, particularly among developed countries? This includes discussions of comparability of emissions targets among developed countries. -- What should contributions be from developing countries, noting the backlash on the 2 degree commitment in the July MEF from several countries, notably India? -- Financing. This remains a fairly fluid topic in the EU, and there remain divisions among Member States. Runge-Metzger also mentioned that he views differences between the U.S. and EU positions on the scale of contributions. For timing in the EU, the Commission will release a financing proposal in early to mid-September, in advance of the G-20. The European Council plans to have conclusions regarding the proposal agreed by mid-October. ¶4. (SBU) The dynamics of the Troika will be fairly relaxed, according to Runge-Metzger. Carlgren will likely start the conversation, but in small settings, both Ribera Rodriguez and Delbeke will be very engaged in the conversation, particularly in situations where the Commission has the competence (such as on carbon markets). (Note. This supports the notion of collaboration and teamwork between Sweden, Spain, and the Commission as demonstrated during the Energy and Environment Ministers meeting in Are, Sweden at the end of July. End note.) ¶5. (SBU) Turning to the UN negotiating session that took place in Bonn from August 10-14, Runge-Metzger said he feels that the sense of urgency is increasing, but that developing countries still do not appear to be prepared to engage. He noted specifically what he feels are destructive elements among the G-77, specifically Algeria, Bolivia, Egypt, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Venezuela. BRUSSELS 00001172 002 OF 002 He sees this trend continuing during the Bangkok negotiating session in September-October. FoHe mentioned tor% insight into U.S. thinking on how to handle Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF, both for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) and for domestic land use change accounting. Kyoto provided a temporary solution, but a permanent framework needs to be addressed. ¶9. (SBU) Finally, the Commission is looking forward to the September MEF to be held in Washington, Runge-Metzger said. The Commission is also supportive of the concept of a MEF Leader's meeting in November, as the timing after all of the negotiating sessions and directly ahead of Copenhagen could be ideal for a last push to move things forward. MURRAY