Address by the President at the 10th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit

New Delhi, 5.2.2010  |  speech

Address by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the 10th Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
New Delhi, 5 February 2010


Thank you very much, Mr Moderator, for giving me the floor and for the opportunity to make a few points relating to the subject under discussion today. Before making my points I need to acknowledge the importance of this event, I would like to express my gratitude to the Government of India and to, particularly to Dr Pachauri for his tireless work, which I'm sure will yield great results and I hope soon.

One of the reasons why congratulations are in order is the timing of this conference. I think it is very important that now, at the beginning of the year 2010, soon after the experience of Copenhagen, there is an organised effort to see exactly where the international community stands, what constituencies are being built and how we can make real progress towards a solution, towards a real binding agreement on climate change. Obviously, we have to start with an assessment of the Copenhagen conference. The vote, which was taken earlier today, shows what the sentiments are. Certainly, Copenhagen fell short of expectations but as it often happens in the international negotiations, when hopes are high, then, disappointments become deep. And this is a situation, which we are facing today. We are in a situation, in which the hopes for Copenhagen Accord were high but the outcome was modest. It was real, it was positive but it fell short of the expectations and now we have to make sure that the disappointments do not become too deep. We have to think about what lessons we learnt in Copenhagen and what needs to be done in the months to come.

Let me refer briefly to some of the lessons, which I believe are of critical importance. They relate to organisation of negotiations, to the question of public opinion and to the identification of stakeholders, which have to be brought into the process during the year 2010.

First, I think that as far as the organisation of negotiations is concerned we have to do everything to better organise the talks, negotiations in smaller groups and the plenary conference, which allows all states to participate. This has to be done better in the year 2010 and the fact that there is a several months period ahead of us should allow us to find a proper formula.

Second, on public opinion. We should work, I believe, all of us who are committed to improvement of policies in the area of climate change, we should work towards better understanding in the public opinion. The Copenhagen outcome was a solid outcome. It is a significant political framework. Copenhagen Accord is a positive step and it would be very unfortunate if public impression was created that the level of success was so low that in fact the Copenhagen Accord should be seen as something negative, as something that simply does not do. I believe it is important to explain what the positive elements of the Copenhagen Accord are and also to say that the commitments that have been stated by 31st January 2010, in accordance with the Copenhagen Accord are real and serious.

Slovenia is a member of the European Union. Therefore I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the European Union has made it clear in its correspondence with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change a few days ago that the EU, and I quote, "and its 27 members are fully committed to continue negotiating with the other parties with a view to concluding as soon as possible within the United Nations framework a legally binding agreement for the period starting 1st January 2013. The EU and its Member States are committed to an independent quantified economy-wide emission reduction target of 20 % by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. This target could be increased to 30 % under the conditions, which were set out earlier in the European Council decisions of December 2009," end of quote.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m quoting this part because I think that it is important at this stage of the process to have a clear account of where different states and groups of states are with their commitments. This brings me to the third point and that is the identification of stakeholders. I believe that it is important to figure out which kinds of groups of states need to be asked to produce clear visions for the future at the early stages of 2010. Obviously, the major economies forum has its role, the G-20 group, especially the finance ministers would also need to be brought into the picture. It is important that the "BASIC group" has already stated its views. I think that the message, which was emphasised this morning by the Prime Minister, was clearly heard. Yes, there is a need for a comprehensive, balanced and equitable outcome of the process leading to the conference in Mexico. But I would add that that process should also lead to a legally binding outcome and I think that a discussion on how to reach that point is needed and needs to take place now.

When one talks about constituencies and stakeholders I believe one has to think about the complexity of the agenda of climate change and the questions related to it. It is not sufficient to rely only on governments. Obviously, the governments will have a key role to play and the governments will have to agree on an outcome, which will be legally binding at the end. But it would be equally important to organise a process, which would allow first of all groups of like-minded states to articulate their views and their proposals, and would also involve other elements in the governmental picture. I’m very pleased to see the Prime Minster of Quebec with us today because I think that it is quite significant that policies and priorities from regions, from federal units and from others who have articulated their policies beyond the average are also heard at the process leading to the Mexico conference. It is one of the advantages of our meeting today that we benefit from the participation of rather diverse group of panellists speaking about the panel and that that is, should be a source of inspiration for the future. It would be interesting to see how these stakeholders, which are not states but which are organised within states, should be put into the picture.

And finally, the businesses. The importance of bringing the business element into the discussion has only grown after Copenhagen. I can clearly sense a degree of impatience in the business sector, impatience with the fact that the diplomatic process does not produce sufficiently clear results on time whereas the business community needs clarity with regard to carbon market, with regard to pricing because that is essential for their own plans both in terms of development and in terms of new technologies that need to be developed.

So, this is where we are as far as the organisation of the process is concerned and the need to restructure the process in a way, which would allow the variety of stakeholders to play their legitimate and proper role in the effort to come to a binding agreement at the end. And finally, let me also mention that we need to think about the end result. The end result is not a simple, single agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. If it were that simple, obviously, then an intergovernmental conference would be sufficient. We need an agreement on targets and timetables for all countries and, obviously, much work in that regard has been done. But we also need harmonised policies, which relate to carbon taxes, cap-and-trade and other regulations. We need more articulated national policies. And all that, I believe, should come as a result of the process, which is taking place this year.

This, obviously, is a huge agenda, it a very tall order but one, which we cannot escape. And at the very end I would like to say: harmonising development objectives, including the need to lift millions and millions of people out of poverty and on the other hand the obligations relating to reduction of emissions of greenhouse gasses. This is a daunting task for the international community but it is a task, which cannot wait, and the year for action is this year. I would like to conclude by saying once again: let us work all together for a final decision on this and let us make sure that that decision is at the end a legally binding.

Thank you very much.