Germanwatch (GW): Dear Mr de Boer, with the severe financial problems, unemployment rates soaring to new heights and with a concerted effort to undermine the trust in climate science showing result in public polls: how would you explain a German citizen that he or she should ask the German government to take bold climate action?

Yvo de Boer: Well, first of all I would point out the fact that the climate sceptics are not calling climate change itself into question. What they are calling into question are the symptoms and the severity of the symptoms of climate change. The debate is not about whether the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing faster or not, because of climate change. The debate is how much faster they are disappearing because of the climate change. And the debate is not whether rain-fed agriculture in Africa will be affected by climate change. The question is how much rain-fed agriculture in Africa is going to be affected. And, projecting the impacts of anything going into the future, is very difficult. I remember when I was in my previous job in the Ministry of Environment ten years ago, I was having arguments with the Ministry of Economic Affairs about what the price of a barrel of oil is going to be in 2020. And at that time we in the environment ministry said the price of a barrel of oil is going to be 10 dollars, so you need a lot of environmental policy to get climate on the control. The Ministry of Economic Affairs was saying: No, the price of a barrel of oil is going to be 25 dollars, so we don't need so much climate policy. And now we are in a situation where a barrel of oil is going to be close to 200 dollars. So, projecting things going into the future is always difficult. But I understand that it is difficult for the general public to make that distinction between the nature of the disease and the symptoms of the disease. I think that people in the policy-making community continue to recognize that climate change is a very serious concern. And continue to realize that failing to act on climate change would have very serious economic, social and environmental consequences. The economic, social and environmental consequences which are much greater then the consequences of not acting on climate change. And, if you refer to the economic crisis, if I'm not mistaken Official Development Assistance (ODA) last year went down by 20bn dollars as the result of the economic crisis. In that same year industrialized governments pledged 100 billion dollars per year for climate aid from 2020 on. That 100 billion is significantly more than current official development assistance. And much more than where development assistance is as a result of the economic crisis. So what you are seeing is that in spite of the economic crisis, industrialized countries are making very significant pledges for financial support. Pledges that are greater than the current pledges of the official development assistance. And I think that this is a reflection of their recognition that this continues to be one of the main threats facing humanity.

GW: Although the Copenhagen Accord agreed to limit global warming to below 2°C, current emission reduction pledges announced in the same Accord by developed countries and emerging economies would result in a warming of 3 to 4°C. How can international climate policy respond to bridge this gap?

Yvo de Boer: Well, first of all I think we have an opportunity we must seize on the road to Cancún to ensure that industrialized countries table more ambitious targets. Secondly, I think if we can make progress in Cancún - using the short time finance and the long-time finance - if we can create a financial mechanism in Cancún which is attractive to developing countries, then more and more emission reduction proposals from developing countries will continue to come in. And thirdly, I would say that the battle to address climate change is a long process. I mean, we took a first step with the climate change Convention saying emissions need to be returned to 1990 levels. Then we took a second step in the context of the Kyoto Protocol which imposes targets for a limited group of industrialized countries. And the next step, the Bali Action Plan provided us with the framework to engage a much larger group of countries in action on climate change. Now, the scientific community is saying that if we want to avoid the severe impacts of climate change, the international community needs to reduce emissions by 50 % roundabout the middle of the century. And probably industrialized countries need to show leadership by reducing their emissions by at least 80 %. And Europe, amongst others, is willing to commit to an 80 % reduction. I do not believe even in my wildest dreams, that Cancún is going to specify exactly how individual countries are going to contribute to that 50 % reduction or 80 % reduction goal. In other words, this is a longer journey that we are on. And one of the elements that I find constructive about the Copenhagen Accord is that, although the maximum 2°C temperature increase which the Copenhagen Accord refers to is seen as unambitious by a number of countries, including the small island States, the Copenhagen Accord also provides for a review in 2015. And I think that that review is an opportunity to say:  what policies do we have in place; what is our current understanding of the science; and how do we need to increase the level of ambition on this next step?

GW: When does the review needs to start? Do you have a time perspective on this?

Yvo de Boer: I think the review in a way has already started. Because the next Assessment Report of the IPCC is going to be coming out in 2014. The terms of that next Assessment Report, the contents of this report are currently being assessed. So my expectation is that in 2014 we will have a very thorough assessment from the IPCC that we can then use a year later in 2015 to see if the policies that are in place, the actions being taken measures up to what science tell us needs to be done. Secondly, the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends at the end of 2012 and then we have a 2 year period, a so called "truer period" in which we as the secretariat will calculate whether countries have actually met their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. So, at the end of 2014 we will have two things: We will have an assessment by the IPCC of what needs to be done, and we will have an assessment of what actually has been done under the Kyoto Protocol. And those two components can be used to determine what the next step needs to be.

GW: The EU usually sees itself as very ambitious, with its commitment to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. But this target is obviously not consistent with the 2°C limit. In addition, most of the pledges to deliver climate finance are fulfilled through the recycling of old commitments. What would be necessary for the EU to be a real driver of change?

Yvo de Boer: There are several assumptions in the question. You make the assumption that the finance is going to be recycled money. What I would love to receive is a request to the UNFCCC Secretariat to make an analysis of the extent to which the short-time finance being provided now actually is new and additional. I share your concern but I don't yet share your conclusion, because I think we need an effective analysis of that. I actually don't find the 20 % of the EU terribly ambitious. I think the 30 % of the EU is a lot better than the 20 %. I hope that on the road to Cancún the EU will make that step from 20 % to 30 %. Also because I think it's in the economic, social and environmental interest of Europe to do that. Europe, in order to take its fair share of climate action has to fundamentally change the direction of economic growth. And you can only do that in radical ways. Let me give you one example: If the EU is to meet its 20 % renewable energy target by 2020, then either every power plant that is built in Europe as of last year would need to be an renewable energy power plant or you would have to close existing fossil fuel plants earlier, in order to meet the 20 % goal. So we need radical changes of direction. I think 30 % is a better way to force that kind of change than 20 %. I hope that the EU will continue to show leadership by taking upon itself ambitious targets, and I think 30 % target is ambitious. I think already in 2005, EU heads of State at the European Council indicated that by mid-century, Europe would need to reduce their emissions by 80 - 85 %, if I'm not mistaken. And I think what Europe should be doing now is to begin to map out how that 2050 goal is going to be achieved. Because 20 % reduction you can achieve with more of the same. A 30 % reduction you can achieve with some change. But an 80 % reduction requires a dramatic restructuring of the economy. Europe can show real leadership by saying "we are serious about that long-term goal and we're going to map out how we intend to achieve it". So I think ambition in a clear domestic or European plan is important. Secondly, Europe can show leadership by reaching out in an honest and constructive way to developing countries. By demonstrating that Europe's contribution to the prompt-start finance will not be a recycling of money, but will be, truly, new and additional finance.

GW: In many developed countries the emissions have decreased substantially because of the economic crisis. Do you see this as a chance to reach more ambitious targets with less costs, and to gain new momentum for a green growth strategy?

Yvo de Boer: Yes, I see that as an opportunity. I mean the emissions are lower because economic activity has been lower and because of that, a number of investments in the energy sector have been postponed. I think we now have an opportunity, as the economy recovers and those investments begin to be made in the energy sector, to ensure that those are green and not brown investments.

GW: The most vulnerable countries have raised their voice stronger than earlier in Copenhagen. The Maldives and others have even committed to become carbon neutral by 100% by 2020. Will this have an impact on the negotiation dynamics and other developing countries?

Yvo de Boer: I think that the most vulnerable countries being more vocal has a very serious impact in the negotiations. I mean we already saw that in Copenhagen, that the speeches President Nasheed was making were having an significant impact in the room. And the concerns that he expressed in the closed meeting amongst the countries that negotiated the Copenhagen Accord also had a very serious impact. So I think that that voice of the most vulnerable is very important in this process.

GW: Climate finance is one of the key issues. Given the financial constraints in many developed countries, it seems more urgent than ever to agree on innovative finance instruments which can deliver resources in the order of more than EURO 100 billion - additional to commitments of Official Development Assistance (ODA). Do you think substantial progress can be achieved here in 2010? Where will we stand in the end of this year?

Yvo de Boer: I think it is essential that we make progress over the coming year on the question of finance. Because without progress on finance there will not be progress in other areas. I think the challenge that we face - not only in the climate domain, but in many other environmental domains - is to fully reflect the cost of pollution in the price of products. And I think once we manage to do that on an increasingly universal basis, it will become easier to mobilize the necessary finance. 85 % of the investments in the energy sector comes from the private sector. So clearly we have to influence private sector behaviour. And governments have at least 3 tools to influence private sector behaviour. First taxation, second regulation and the third is market-based mechanisms. I think that taxation and market-based mechanisms can both be used to generate revenue from the private sector, to ensure that the polluters pay for the cost to restoring the damage that they are causing

GW: Do you already see a specific financing mechanism which perhaps is the most realistic that will be agreed upon? For example a levy on bunker fuels, an instrument which is quite consistent with the objective to fight climate change.

Yvo de Boer: This process is in a way about a fair allocation of paying. And I think that we will need to look at all avenues for generating financial resources. I don't think we can afford ourselves the luxury of picking one. And one of the decisions the High Level Advisory Group took at its first meeting was to look at all potential avenues for generating financial resources and not to exclude anything until the options have been seriously considered. I think that whether it's industry, transportation or households, all three sectors of the economy should contribute to covering the cost of the environmental damage that they cause. 

GW: You will be leaving office soon and it is likely that for the first time a developing country representative may become the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. What was the highlight in your office term, and what key recommendation would you give to your successor?

Yvo de Boer: I don't think I have a single highlight, I would mention three. The first highlight for me was the adoption of the Bali Action Plan, because that signifies a recognition of the fact that action by industrialized countries alone is not enough, that we need action from the whole international community. The second highlight for me was the adoption of the Copenhagen Accord. Although I would have much preferred a legal outcome of Copenhagen and although I hope that legal outcome can now be realized in Cancún, I think that the presence of a 120 Heads of States and Government in Copenhagen was a sign of the fact that this issue has now finally reached the place on the political agenda where it belongs. In a political sense, the Copenhagen Accord is very important. Thirdly, when I came to this job three-and-a-half years ago, finance was a pretty marginal issue. Now people have begun to realize that finance - not just in sense of mobilizing finance but also in sense of using finance to change the direction of economic growth - that there is a much stronger realization of that issue. If we can get a clear way forward in Cancún on three things:  on how to mobilize, manage and disperse money, that would make the process from then on much easier.

And, any guidance for my successor...

I would advise my successor to listen very carefully. Because this is a very complicated process where very many different interests are represented at the table. And it is only if you truly and deeply understand each of those interests that you can discover a way forward. If you listen to the official positions that countries take, it generally doesn't help you very much in terms of your understanding. You need to dig deeper and find out what interest underpins the position that is being taken. Because you can find consensus by addressing the interest. It's much more difficult, if not impossible, to find consensus by addressing the positions. Secondly, I would recommend that my successor focus very strongly on implementation. We've had many years of negotiations in the climate change process and what we finally now need to get around to is implementation, actually stop the talking and start the action.

GW: In order to ensure that the UNFCCC negotiations will continue to be the key arena for international climate policy, what are the specific institutional reform steps you think are required (e.g. go beyond full consensus, multi-year presidencies etc.)?

Yvo de Boer: The best way to safeguard continuity is through success. If this process can show that it can achieve expected results, then its future will be safeguarded. The process showed in Rio that it works, it showed in Kyoto that it works, it showed in Bali that it works. It failed to show in Copenhagen that it works, but now it needs to recover from that in Cancún. Secondly, getting things done in a dictatorship is much easier then getting things done in a democracy. The UN climate change negotiations are a democratic process, not a dictatorial process. If we had a situation whereby a majority of countries could impose a 4°C temperature increase on a minority of countries, that would not be a healthy way to go. There are always things you can do to improve the process but I do not believe that in Copenhagen the process was a fault, it was how the process was used. If I think back to that closing plenary in Copenhagen, people were complaining about three things: They were complaining about the composition of the small group that had negotiated the Accord; they were upset because President Obama had given a press conference on the Accord before it had been presented to the Plenary; and they were angry because they were only given one hour to consider the Copenhagen Accord before its adoption. So the concerns, at least the initial concerns that were raised, were of a procedural nature and how the process had been managed. There are many, especially industrialised countries, who are now saying we should have majority decision-making not consensus decision-making. I would like to remind industrialised countries that at COP 1 in Berlin it was the industrialised countries who were against majority decision-making because they were afraid that financial decisions were taken that were not in their interest.

GW: Thank you very much for the interview.

Interview: Sven Harmeling