A policy of small steps is hardly exciting

What lessons are you getting from Copenhagen, knowing that Cancun comes with two texts in competition

Of course, we would prefer to negotiate on a single text. But from the beginning, there have always been two lanes of negotiation, the framework convention United Nations on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. At present, there is the "Copenhagen Agreement", approved year last by 140 countries, and the Kyoto Protocol. Must advance on both fronts. The refusal of some States to discuss any agreement outside the framework of the Kyoto Protocol was losing precious time in Copenhagen and partly explains the failure. Nevertheless, almost alone, Europe and the Japan were set itself objectives for the reduction of gas emissions by 2020 greenhouse before the Copenhagen Conference and since then, 80 countries have done. Abandon the institutional wrangling. It must move forward to keep the momentum of the UN negotiations and do not attend their sinking. Because there is currently no instance of alternative negotiations. The g-20 China and the India are opposite. The G8 It does not represent half of global emissions. As the "G2", one of two large emitters, China and the United States, was because there was no progress. Must therefore accommodate and advance step by step.

On peux negotiate without knowing the final architecture of the text

It is a question of political realism. For a year, nothing has happened to decisive in major capitals. Last March, it became clear that Americans should not embrace their climate bill, and that others could continue to hide behind them. So take the opposite road to Copenhagen, of small, focusing on the measures that are little or less for years that they are the subject of a consensus in discussion. Whether the mechanism to be implemented to fight against deforestation, technological cooperation, of the rules of transparency to verify emissions each State....

A policy of small steps is hardly exciting...

This is obviously far more slowly that I would. It is the seventh International Conference on climate in which I participate from Buenos Aires in 2004. I remember that when the Ministers of the environment bemoaned together the neglect of their Governments for the subject and their refusal to spend a penny. Look at the progress made: all States are now wondering how to achieve sustainable growth. I repeat, no country had reduction targets by 2020 five years ago.

If the binding targets are useful, why can't we persuade our partners

But they do! China has implemented. In the third quarter of 2010, it has even invested more that the European Union in green technologies, with expenditures estimated at $ 13.5 billion, against 8.4 billion US. And she now has half of global investment ($20.5 billion) in the wind energy sector! Indeed, China has made green technologies a real "business case", with the ambition to take the world of speed. Many countries move, South Korea, the Mexico, the Brazil, even the India.

How to navigate the announcements of the country

We must make progress on the implementation of an effective system monitoring, declarations and audits of emissions each, allowing an accounting rigorous, reliable and transparent, only able to build mutual trust.

What transparency if we do not light on our financial commitments

In Cancun, we present a report on the promised funds, which shows that the Union has good released 2.2 billion euros in aid in 2010 as promised, the commitments made at Copenhagen of funding accelerated between 2010 and 2013. Since a few days, we identified all funding made available by the Member States for the fight against climate change and it is accessible via the Internet (1). But, of course, there is an argument of negotiation, financial transparency against the objectives.