AUSTRALIAN READOUT ON MEF LEADERS' MEETING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 000657 NOFORN SIPDIS STATE FOR S/SECC STERN, PERSHING, OES/EGC TALLEY, WHITE HOUSE FOR CEQ SUTLEY, NSC LOI E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/17/2019 TAGS: SENV KGHG AS SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN READOUT ON MEF LEADERS' MEETING REF: CANBERRA 603 CANBERRA 00000657 001.2 OF 002 Classified By: Economic Counselor Edgard Kagan, Reasons 1.4(b)(d) ¶1. (C/NF) Summary: Australia is generally pleased with the final statement of the Major Economies Forum (MEF) meetings in L,Aquila July 8-9, but fears that generating momentum towards an agreement at Copenhagen will probably require another meeting of MEF leaders before the December UNFCCC negotiations. GOA assessment is that the MEF leaders, meeting did draw out positions of China and India, but did not deliver an "atmospheric change" that would have energized cooperation in the UNFCCC sphere. Australian climate negotiators are concerned that the idea of G20 Finance Ministers reporting in September will meet resistance from the more conservative Treasury here in Canberra. End Summary. ¶2. (C/NF) Econoff met with Department of Climate Change Deputy Secretary Howard Bamsey on July 14 to discuss the outcomes of the recent MEF Leaders, meeting in Italy. Bamsey said that the Prime Minister had been pleased with the press conference announcing the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute and said he had "never seen anything like it". Bamsey recounted PM Rudd,s improvisation on the stage, which reflected well on his political instincts. The PM standing beside the President talking about the GCCSI with other MEF leaders standing behind him had amplified positive coverage of the MEF here in Australia and bolstered the PM,s image as someone that world leaders, are listening to. While others on Rudd,s staff have indicated some disappointment with their treatment at L,Aquila (septel) on climate change issues at least, the PM is apparently pleased with how things went. ¶3. (C/NF) Bamsey said that he was disappointed initially with the final leaders, statement, but after more consideration recognized that it was a decent step. The actual leaders, meeting had not gone as well as he had hoped, but a long-term goal, a commitment to trying to hold the 2 degree line, and actions by developing countries were valuable inclusions in the statement, as was forcing the PRC and India to formally put forward their initial negotiating position that they would never accept a global aggregate goal that could be interpreted as a binding commitment for developing countries. While he thought developed countries "gave up a little too easily" on getting developing countries to agree to an aggregate goal of 50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050, he believes the other elements of the statement were strong. He commented that that there is a concern that setting such targets in the MEF context could lessen the likelihood of agreement at Copenhagen. He also felt the President had laid out all of the issues effectively but there was a lack of interplay between leaders and too little substantive discussion of major issues. That was partly due to the timing of the meeting and to the fact that key player Hu Jintao had not participated, and Germany had not made any QHu Jintao had not participated, and Germany had not made any substantive contribution to the discussion. In Bamsey,s opinion, the "atmospheric change" Australia had hoped would come out of the MEF had not developed, and if the MEF is to contribute substantially to Copenhagen, another meeting of leaders would be necessary. Bamsey recognized this would be extremely difficult, and said that Copenhagen would be "more difficult" than he had previously thought unless the MEF generated some additional breakthrough in upcoming meetings. ¶4. (C/NF) Bamsey said that the suggestion to have G20 Finance Ministers report on financing details in September in Pittsburg had not been agreed to, but had been endorsed by the President in his public comments, so would now take place. Bamsey believed this would require a separate meeting of Finance Ministers prior to September and he said that it would be a challenge to get the Australian Treasury involved in the MEF process between now and September, as Treasury was more conservative and concerned about being dragged into negotiating on international financing issues. Australia is looking forward to more detail on financing, and Bamsey said CANBERRA 00000657 002.2 OF 002 he thought the Mexico proposal for a Green Fund was "just about there" in terms of forming the basis for a deal. The GOA is looking at the possible calendar options for substantive leaders meetings around the G-20 or elsewhere, but has no concrete suggestions and will follow the lead of the U.S. ¶5. (C/NF) Comment: Bamsey's view that the MEF process, though useful, was not enough and that a real breakthrough at the top will be necessary for success at Copenhagen is likely to reflect PM Rudd's concerns. While happy with PM Rudd's participation in the MEF, Australia appears to believe that further MEF meetings will not generate any breakthroughs unless leaders are again involved. End Comment. CLUNE