Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
60-70)
RT HON
EDWARD MILIBAND
MP, MR PETER
BETTS AND
MS JAN
THOMPSON
10 MARCH 2010
Q60 Chair: Is there a danger now,
while we are going down the Accord route at least for the time
being, that, if we are relying on individual countries to make
pledges and review the progress and so on, that actually allows
short-term arguments about the competitive concerns to be even
more influential?
Edward Miliband: Just explain
why.
Q61 Chair: If you are a country agonising
about what you can commit to and you are doing so outside any
legal framework and without much external pressure, you may think,
"Well, hang on, here's this industry lobby here", if
we were having a tough time, "and we don't want to get even
into line with some other countries".
Edward Miliband: Well, I agree
with that and, in a way, that is why, and let me be completely
candid with you about this, governments face a dilemma in this.
I did not come back from Copenhagen and declare a great triumph
when it clearly was not a great triumph, but, on the other hand,
I think there is a slight danger that everyone becomes a bit too
downbeat. You know, we do have 107 countries associating with
the Accord and we have never had an agreement that covers 80%
of the emissions and, in a way, I think part of the balance we
have to strike is sending a clear message about the successes
of Copenhagen as well as saying that we have got to build on it
and get the legal framework that I think we need.
Chair: Well, I am sure we are at one
about recognising that we do not want to sound too gloomy and
I think part of the solution is to give people a sense of hope
as well.
Q62 Martin Horwood: Looking at some
of the other parties to future negotiations, clearly it remains
the US and China who are the biggest emitters and the biggest
of the most significant players in this. What, do you think, are
the key steps, the key changes or the key movements that they
need to make in order to take negotiations forward successfully?
Edward Miliband: On China, as
I think I have already indicated, I think that the work that we
need to do, and this is a discussion I had with the outgoing Ambassador
to London in January and will have with the incoming Ambassador
later this month, is to try and persuade them about the need for
a legal framework because underlying the discussion that we have
had in the last 90 minutes or so has been the importance of this
legal framework. I think we need to persuade China, among others,
that this is going to be positive for them actually, so that is
the biggest priority as far as China is concerned. As far as the
US is concerned, I am obviously not responsible for their domestic
legislative management—lucky me—and obviously I hope
they get a Bill, I think it is important that they get a Bill,
and it is obviously challenging at the moment, but having a legislative
base in the US would be very, very helpful. I think it is good
that they have put their target into the Accord and I think it
is good that they have also got ways of acting through the Environmental
Protection Agency, but I think we would like a Bill and we would
like the most ambitious Bill that we can get. Obviously that looks
more difficult than it did six or nine months ago, but I think
that that is important and I actually think that what was secured
on China and MRV and the Chinese targets is quite important in
helping that forward. I think the reasons why the Bill is so difficult
is actually not to do with the content of Copenhagen, it is to
do with a whole set of other issues which will be familiar to
us, so I think that is what we need from the US and China.
Q63 Martin Horwood: And is our sort
of well-oiled Rolls-Royce of a diplomatic machine gearing up to
try to help this to happen, and in fact not only ours, but the
new British-influenced diplomatic machine? Is the international
community and Britain, in particular, trying to make these things
happen?
Edward Miliband: Definitely, and
paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary might seem like nepotism,
but I actually think that the Foreign Office did an outstanding
job last year in helping us both in America and in other countries.
Sometimes it felt like there were more people in the Foreign Office
working on these issues in some of our embassies and even in the
UK and, if you, as I am sure the Committee will have done, go
round the world, you will find that actually there is a big, big
focus in our embassies, not just in Washington, on climate and
on the need to lobby, to inform and to help to do all those things,
so the Rolls-Royce is going at full pelt.
Q64 Martin Horwood: I broadened it
out slightly to the international community and to Europe as well,
but what are the carrots and sticks available to the rest of the
international community to influence China and the United States
or the US Congress perhaps in the right direction?
Edward Miliband: Let me just talk
about the developing countries for a minute because I just want
to expand on something I said earlier, and I think you ask a good
question. What developing countries want most of all, and the
Kyoto badges issue is sort of illustrative of this, is they do
want a future set of legal commitments from the Kyoto parties,
and that is the sort of bottom line, that is something we know
that they want, and they also want commitments from the US. I
actually think that the reason why I said the thing I said earlier
about being willing to have another period of the Kyoto Protocol,
I think that is one of the carrots, if you like, that we can give
in these negotiations, to say, "Look, we're willing to have
another commitment period of Kyoto, but we do need you to be part
of a legal framework". This is clearly very important to
them and it is important because they think, "Well, we've
got a legal Treaty, Kyoto, and it may not be perfect, but we don't
want it to be completely upended and we'd like it to carry on,"
and I think that that is something that we should be willing to
entertain, provided it is on the right terms. I also think, and
this is not necessarily meant as a stick, if we are going to get,
going back to what we said earlier, the resources that we need
for the poorest and the most vulnerable developing countries,
we need public finance, but we also need the carbon market and
that requires a legal Treaty, so I think there is a sort of moral
imperative too to getting a legal Treaty and I think that is a
moral imperative that China and India and others would understand,
and again I think that is something that needs to be explained.
Q65 Mark Lazarowicz: You told us
something about your views on the lessons that can be learned
from the process up to, and including, Copenhagen as far as numbers
of parties involved are concerned and all the rest of it. Are
there any other kinds of lessons that we should learn from Copenhagen
for Cancun and, really more generally, what kind of things should
we be looking out for as potential difficulties and what are we
doing to try to avoid them becoming such?
Edward Miliband: That is a good
and important question. I have talked about the UNFCCC and the
UNFCCC is a 500-strong organisation, and this is no critique of
previous leadership because I think Yvo de Boer did a very valiant
job in difficult circumstances, but I think that they need more
fire power at the top of the organisation. I think there is a
case for the post being a higher-level post, as I think it is
currently third down in the UN, and I think it needs more fire
power. I think I would like to see the negotiations, in a way,
directed more by that organisation because I think it is not fair
on the host country to sort of dump them in it to have to try
and manoeuvre their way through these very, very difficult negotiations,
so that is the first thing I would say. Secondly, the negotiations,
and I referred earlier to this, need to have more political ownership.
Jan may want to something about this, but I was very struck that
the negotiators would go off for a couple of weeks every couple
of months to go and negotiate, and we would obviously have conversations
about it, but the ministers themselves were not there at the negotiations.
I actually think that, present company excepted, sometimes the
negotiators just stick in entrenched positions and do not move,
and I think that is important. Thirdly, you need this smaller
group and you need formal and informal smaller groups, so I think
you need a sort of `friends of the Chair' process that can take
forward and inform some of the negotiations and you also need
the informal contacts between developed and developing countries,
so they are three lessons that I would point to.
Ms Thompson: I think the new COP
Presidency for this year, the Mexicans, are taking some steps
to try to address those problems and, in particular, the disconnect
between the political and the technical levels and the fact that
some of these new negotiations processes have not been closely
enough connected into the UNFCCC formal negotiations. One way
that they are trying to do this is to set up contact groups, as
you have said, `friends of the Chair'-type arrangements which
would be representative of the various regional groups, but, because
they would be under Mexican chairmanship, would be very directly
linked into the formal UNFCCC negotiations, so the progress made
there would have some kind of legitimacy and could be translated
back into the formal negotiations under the UNFCCC. The other
way that they are trying to do that to make this link between
the political and technical levels is that they will be holding,
jointly with the German Government, a meeting at ministerial level
of a group of 40 or 45 or so countries, again representative of
regional groups, in Germany, in Bonn at the beginning of May,
to try and bring ministers together from all those countries to
see how progress can be made this year, building on the Accord
and taking things forward towards the Mexico meeting in Cancun.
Q66 Mark Lazarowicz: I am encouraged
by some of what you say, but I am also a little bit concerned
because, on the one hand, clearly lessons have been learnt and
things have been put in place, but, equally, it is only nine months
now to Cancun and we are talking about changes in organisational
structure, changes in personnel, and the Mexican Presidency is
doing some things, but the impression I get is that not all of
it can be done by them because clearly it is a changing situation.
Who should have got a grip on the overall scheme to make sure
that things do happen, these organisational changes? Yvo de Boer
is resigning, so what is driving this in an overall sense?
Edward Miliband: I think you ask
a completely right question, Mark, and I think what is good is
that the UN Secretary-General has taken ownership of this issue,
not just last year, but this year too, and is driving the high-level
panel and trying to get the Accord put into practice and now making
changes at the UNFCCC. I think as soon as possible we need a new
head of the UNFCCC to drive these negotiations and I think that
is the role that that organisation should have. Martin asked earlier
about whether it should be in permanent session and I think all
of those things should be on the table, frankly, because I think
there needs to be real drive and the new head of that organisation
needs to be a strong figure, in my view, who can really push this
thing forward because, rather than the rotating presidency, which
is always going to be difficult and I actually think that Connie
Hedegaard, in particular, did a fantastic job last year, rather
than that being the person who always has to drive things forward,
I think you do need a permanent presence that can drive these
things forward.
Q67 Mark Lazarowicz: When do we expect
that permanent presence to be there?
Edward Miliband: As soon as possible,
and the advert is going out quite soon. I hope that over the next
few weeks, frankly, we get a new person in place.
Q68 Colin Challen: It has gone out
in an advert but it is not like we advertise the vacancy for the
Presidency of the EU. Is it going to be a political appointment
or is it going to be a bureaucrat and maybe somebody from the
IMF or somewhere else who is just looking for a promotion? Should
it not be someone like Kofi Annan? I am just thinking of names
off the top of my head.
Edward Miliband: It is different
from some of the other appointments that you might be referring
to. This is an appointment made by the UN Secretary-General and
I think it is obviously not for me to tell him who to appoint.
As I have indicated, it does need to be, with the greatest respect
to bureaucrats, not a bureaucrat and I think it does need to be
a more political figure who can get through the thicket of these
negotiations but also drive this thing forward politically, with
a small `p', so, if that is the import of your question, I agree
with it.
Q69 Joan Walley: Can I just go back
to what was being said about the negotiations in the run-up to
Cancun and the next phase. Is there any way that you can specifically
get a role for trained mediators working within the UN regime
to actually help and assist to move that process on because that
was the one message that I came away from Copenhagen with, the
importance of mediation in helping to get through some of this
treacle, or whatever it is you refer to or however we describe
it?
Edward Miliband: I do not know,
but what do you think about trade mediators? Sometimes one did
feel like one was in a sort of situation requiring mediation.
Mr Betts: It is certainly true
that part of the problem was genuine political difference, but
it is also true that there was often simply misunderstanding,
and many delegations had very few people and they very easily
can have the views of other delegations misrepresented to them,
so it is certainly worth our thinking about that. Perhaps I should
have said earlier that we did try to ask some big questions after
Copenhagen, including on ways we could improve the process, and
we are working very closely with the Foreign Office to try to
draw lessons from other processes and other institutions to see
ways that we could reform the UNFCCC. On the other hand, it does
take time. Any reform in the UNFCCC tends to take time because
you need to get everybody brought into it, so I think there are
the kinds of things that we can do in a slightly slower time,
but a new leadership is something we can do quite quickly and
a new leadership could begin to drive some of these things this
year rather than in two or three years' time because I think the
new post plus the Mexicans, as Jan was saying, is key.
Edward Miliband: I think, Joan,
your suggestion is definitely worthy of consideration. I cannot
over-estimate the complexity of these negotiations and, in a way,
I have not said this, but these are unbelievably complex negotiations
and often the negotiations are conducted by reference to what
seem like biblical texts which is the Convention, the Kyoto Protocol
and different clauses of those documents. As part of what the
new person who does this job as the head of the UNFCCC needs to
be, I think it would be better if it were someone who is steeped
in that and can get through this, so I am sure there is a role
for mediators, but you need to have a level of knowledge to be
able to get through some of these difficulties.
Joan Walley: I was not suggesting for
one moment that it should be outside the political context and
framework within which it is taking place. I think it is just
the issue because it is so complicated and because people almost
did not turn up in Copenhagen and it is about communication. Because
of the complexity of it, it is really important that all the participants
are working to a specification and that there is clear communication
of what the specification should be, and that, I think, is the
gap where there was a sort of mismatch between, on the one level,
the political aspirations and, on the other level, how you could
get to a situation where people could sign up to it.
Q70 Chair: I think we are probably
drawing to a close. Thank you very much for your time. It has
been a really interesting session from our point of view and I
know that whoever is on this Committee after the election will
want to return to it, I am sure, well before the autumn, but we
are really grateful to you.
Edward Miliband: Thank you very
much, Chair, and, just to reiterate what I said at the outset,
can I thank your Committee for all the important work it does
both on the domestic and the international scene.
Chair: Thank you very much.
|
