Toespraak van minister Reynders tijdens de 12de bijeenkomst van Mini..
Datum: 05 november 2015
"Climate Change, 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management"
As we speak, more than 150 countries and by far the majority of the countries gathering here at the ASEM meeting, have come forward with their intended contributions quantifying their proposed efforts for the Paris Agreement. This coverage, which account for 90% of global emissions, is
unprecedented. In the 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol - so under the present binding climate agreement - only 35 countries representing approximately 12% of global emissions have targets. This really illustrates the giant step forward COP21 could mean in tackling climate change.
While politics on climate show reason for optimism, there is also reason not to be complacent. Adding up the numbers from the intended contributions show that we are still quite far from being on track for reaching the 2DEGC objective. Initial calculations point rather at an increase of 3DEGC.
It is precisely for this reason that Belgium and the EU seek a dynamic agreement that contains a clear long term goal for a transition to a low carbon society and in which every 5 year we take stock of where we stand so as to step up ambition.
While we think a successful outcome in Paris is within reach, we are nevertheless concerned about the disconnect between the political will to reach such an agreement and the actual state of negotiations. It is in our interest that the UNFCCC negotiations during the first week of the Paris
meeting can deliver a proposed outcome for further political consideration and approval. There is a kind of paradox in the negotiations for COP21: as everyone seems to be convinced of a successful outcome, negotiators tend to hold their cards close to their chest arguing this will improve
their position. But of course, this is a risky game and we all have a common interest in speeding up negotiations. While I have the fullest confidence in the French COP Presidency, I think it is also in their interest that the Party driven negotiations deliver early in Paris.
On substance there is sometimes in the media a too simplistic picture portraying some countries as ambitious while other are perceived as rather defensive. I think this picture is not correct. Every colleague I spoke in recent months is ambitious on COP21. Of course our ambitions are different
ones. Some countries have big expectations on strengthened technology cooperation so as to decouple economic growth from emissions. Others are principally concerned about dealing with impacts such as flooding or increased stress on the provision of drinking water and on agriculture. While
others focus strongly on moving jointly towards strong reduction targets on emissions. The challenge for us all is to prevent that these different priorities - which are all equally legitimate - cancel out each other and lead to us to a low common denominator. In that scenario we would be all
be on the losing side. What we should aim for is an agreement that is ambitious across the board. An agreement that is strong on adaptation, on mitigation, on technology and on international cooperation. This would be in favour of all of us.
Therefore, Belgium seeks a balanced agreement with political parity between mitigation and adaptation and means of implementation supporting both. It is also important that the Agreement will be a dynamic one. We strongly are in favor of ambition cycles whereby countries are encouraged to
upward adjust their commitment and thus keeping the below 2DEGC objective and a climate resilient world within reach. We seek an ambitious and binding agreement whereby all countries take action based on their specific national circumstances.
I am convinced that this ASEM meeting can deliver a meaningful contribution to COP21. The Declaration sends a clear signal in this respect. Furthermore, I think that if we could leave here with a common understanding that an ambitious outcome "across the board" is preferable to a "lowest
common denominator" agreement in which we all will lose, this would be a huge success. Also, as Ministers of Foreign Affairs it is important that we urgently give our negotiators the signal that it is time now to find solutions and to bridge different approaches.