The ministerial phase of the Climate Summit begins today in Montreal, where the environment ministers of 189 countries will try to mark the steps for the post-Kyoto stage. Before travelling to Montreal to participate in the UN Summit, Arturo Gonzalo Aizpiri, Secretary of State for the Prevention of Pollution and Climate Change, explained the keys to the negotiations that are set to be tough.

-The EU has always acted as the driving force behind climate agreements, what do you hope to achieve at this Summit?

It is decisive that we begin to discuss what the regime of future commitments will be. It should be remembered that Kyoto is only a first step and there are no commitments set for beyond 2012, which is precisely when humanity will have to make the greatest effort to contain its emissions. The scientific consensus estimates that industrialized countries will have to reduce their emissions by 60 to 80 percent by 2050, when the Kyoto protocol only establishes a reduction of 5 percent and not even all industrialized countries have assumed that reduction, such as the United States.

The United States has once again insisted that Kyoto is not for them. Has there been no rapprochement of positions since the Buenos Aires Summit?

There have been extraordinary efforts on the part of all of us to open up these possibilities for the United States to join, and it is true that it has shown an extraordinarily forceful attitude along the lines that it will not accept quantitative commitments of a binding nature. That may cause us a certain unease, but it is also true that he has taken some steps, such as the Gleneagles statement, and has not ceased to be present in all forums. I don’t want to cheat on my own or deceive myself in relation to his position, but I do want to highlight some steps that represent a qualitative advance. However, leaving Montreal with a timetable and a working methodology that suggests that they will make commitments beyond 2012 is very difficult, but the internal pressure in the United States is stronger today than it was a year ago. It is very difficult for Montreal to end up in success, but Kyoto must be kept alive and a step, however small, towards the future regime.

And what role will OPEC countries play this year? Because in Buenos Aires they made more opposition than the United States itself.

-Absolutely. The OPEC countries, and particularly Saudi Arabia, have taken initiatives to make it difficult, first, for the Kyoto agreements to be reached; secondly, for the Protocol to enter into force and, thirdly, for it to be fully operational and commitments to be reached beyond 2012. This year they have tabled an amendment that aims to delay the approval and implementation of the compliance regime. Their argument is that developing countries, including Saudi Arabia, are suffering from the consequences of climate change, a problem that industrialized countries have caused, and that developing countries want assurances that the legal binding nature of the compliance regime is full. This when it comes from a country with the per capita income of Saudi Arabia is outrageous, as is the fact that in the adaptation regime they want to include compensation for an alleged loss of oil revenues in the future. It is scandalous that large oil producers, who in many cases have higher per capita incomes than many industrialized countries, have to be compensated. Therefore, something that may be significant is that the differences in the G-77 (group of developing countries plus China) are highlighted.

But in the G-77 they have many customers.

Nothing is easy, but our South American colleagues, who paid for oil three years ago at $25 and today pay it at $60, are not going to accept hearing that the priority in adapting to climate change is to compensate oil producers. All this when they have just experienced a tropical storm that has set the clock ten years behind them in terms of development.

-Should some of these developing countries start controlling their emissions now?

Yes, if we focus only on the United States, we will overlook the fact that there are large emerging economies that will also have to start being agents in this process. I am talking about China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, the South African Republic and Indonesia. Although we cannot deny the inevitable, and that is that developing countries in order to enter into some commitment regime are going to ask for the principle of equity, and they have much lower levels of per capita emissions. If an American emits 21 tons per inhabitant per year, what rule obliges a Mexican to emit four? We must be flexible and, in the long term, set a target that will allow developing countries to move forward and that will force industrialized countries to make an additional effort. But the per capita emissions criterion will undoubtedly be essential for a future agreement.

-That criterion would be good for Spain, how is the discussion within the EU?

-At first, within the EU there was a lot of concern about the possibility of establishing per capita criteria because it would mean accepting that these large emerging economies would multiply their emissions and the planet cannot afford it. Germany has already supported this principle and I believe that the EU has a more realistic vision for adjusting future commitments. This would mean a more equitable regime for Spain after 2012, because in 2002 Luxembourg’s per capita emissions were 23 tonnes per inhabitant per year, Germany’s 12.3, the United Kingdom’s 10.7 tonnes and Spain’s 9.8. We are below the average and we are below other countries that appear to be more compliant.

-The latest emissions data will be presented at the Summit. Is it embarrassing for Spain to have exceeded its commitment so much?

-As embarrassing as it is for Canada. We have the same 30 points difference from the target, what happens is that since Spain was recognised as having an increase, we have a greater increase. We have had extraordinary economic growth and in four years our population has increased by 10 percent. This is unparalleled, although it is true that there has been a deficit of public policies for energy saving and efficiency. That is why we must continue working so that our emissions begin to show signs of moderation.

By Araceli Acosta (Abc).