Cement, Energy and Environment

agreement on substance and not on the form, as the latter could also be addressed at the 2011 meeting of the Parties in South Africa. Commissioner Hedegaard also stressed that contrary to what has been repeatedly stated in the Indian press, the EU is very committed to the Kyoto Protocol, its mechanisms and its achievements to date, and that the EU will meet its Kyoto reduction target of 8 per cent of greenhouse gas em1ss1ons compared to 1990 levels. The EU is ready to commit to a new Kyoto target in the second commitment period but it cannot be the only one. Courtesy: EU-INDIA UPDATE, Vol. 9, No.8, April-May 2010, P1. FIRST WORLD BREAKING COPENHAGEN PROMISES Merely Recycling Already Committed Development Assistance As Climate Funds Urmi A Goswami BONN Six months after developed countries pledged to provide finance to the developing world to fight climate change, there is no clarity on the exact quantum of money available. This is happening even when it is being recognized that settling the finance question would be a major step in improving the trust among nations that is needed for a global deal on climate change. There is a growing sense that the money promised in Copenhagen is not coming in, instead it is feared t hat the fast-start finance is recycling existing development assistance funds. In Accord, countries "new the Copenhagen industrialized agreed to provide and additional resources, including forestry and investments, through international institutions, approaching $30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation." There is no clear indication exactly what is meant by new and additional resources. There is a growing concern that much of this promised finance is in the form of recycled official development assistance or money already allocated to development programmes, with climate co-benefits. Experts warn that the promise of " new and additional funds" will be meaningless without a baseline year from which to determine what counts towards new funding. The absence of a baseline is adding to the growing apprehension that the developed world will merely recycle already committed development assistance as climate funds. A briefing paper by the International Institute for Environment and Development (liED). Baseline For Trust: use projections of business-as– usual development assistance as baselines, but the longer-term benchmark could be the provision of truly new funds from new funding sources. The paper calls for a UN-based system to define baselines and monitor pledges and payments. A clear indication on finance is crucial to regaining the trust of developing nations, which is essential for reaching a global climate deal. Saleemul Huq, who is one of the three authors of the liED paper, says: "Funding from developed countries to help developing countries tackle climate change has the potential to rebuild the lost trust between the two sets countries - but only if it is done properly. Agreeing on baselines for assessing 'new and additional' climate funds is key." At Bonn, developing countries are hoping to get a better picture on the question of the source of finance. The European Commission has said that the EU on track to provide 2.39 billion of fast-start finance in 2010. Courtesy: The Economic Times, June 7, 2010. Defining New and Additional Climate Funding, outlines two workable options for defining a baseline to balance the US, AUSTRALIA CHANGE demands of donor and recipient TRACK nations. The paper's co-author J Timmons Roberts says: " When is a promise not a promise? When there's no specified baseline that would allow anyone to know if the promise has been fulfiled. That's the case with the Copenhagen Accord's climate finance promise, and that's why this issue needs Immediate attention to get the negotiations back on track." It is suggested that a viable solution for the short-term is to Won't cut C0 2 emissions The US and Australia have gone back on what little commitment they made to cut carbon emissions. The US climate change bill was stalled in the senate; the Australian government followed suit and deferred its carbon trading scheme for a year. The US climate bill that aimed to cut industrial emissions by 20 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 (7 per cent below 1990 levels) had failed to muster 40 A \ ( -' '\