As I contemplate COP17 in  Durban, I reflect on previous COPs and the time that has passed so quickly. As if it were yesterday, I remember the frustrations 2 years ago in Copenhagen over the proceedings and the lack of results in. This was followed a year ago by the excitement in Cancun over the adoption of the text within the formal procedure of the United Nations. 

Since then the European Union (EU) has not stood still. Despite the enormous fiscal and economic problems, sustainable development has remained the focus of concrete initiatives. In times of economic crisis, it becomes more difficult yet more urgent to consider environmental needs within an energy policy.

Every EU document on development indicates that the ‘’green economy’’ is the best possible solution to the crisis. The objectives of the EU 20-20-20 targets were:

• A 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions 

• A 20% share of renewable energy sources by 2020

• A 20% reduction in primary energy use

Despite our economic woes, we are now prepared for a 30% reduction in emissions by 2020 if other comparable economies would adopt similar environmental commitments.  Since energy supply at an economic price is essential for the EU's economic recovery, steps must be taken carefully when deciding energy legislation in this far reaching area. Easy options can lead to added problems - such as replacing coal with gas and then increasing gas dependency.  We must also recognise that within the EU family, we have strong and weak members and the options for some are simply not available to others.

After 2013 the new seven-year EU budget will come into force, and this is the time to prepare many sectoral strategies. 

The "green" component remains a major factor in everything icluding:

• Industrial policy, 

• Business development, 

• Energy policy

• Research policy, 

• Cohesion and 

• Agriculture. 

In addition, we are drafting a strategy for sustainable development up to 2050, aiming to reduce our emissions to between 80% and 95%. This is under preparation for the EU to lead the climate negotiations. 

The EU has very often been the driving force in international negotiations, and it is for this reason a leader in environmental policies. This also economically problematic as we have international targets but no international agreements. So the most environmentally responsible countries risk weakening their global trade positions. In 2011 the EU stood almost alone in the desire for a globally balanced, decisive and legally binding international action. China, as the largest greenhouse gas emissions producer, is not required to reduce emissions under the Kyoto Protocol, while the U.S. has not even ratified the Kyoto Protocol even though they remain responsible for 18% of global CO2 emissions. Japan, Canada and Russia have indicated that they do not intend to honour the Protocol in the future. In such circumstances, our unconditional commitment to continue with the second period of the Kyoto Protocol would thus cover only 11% of global emissions. What impact would a reduction of such a small proportion of emissions have on the global rise in temperature?

Consequently, any commitment of the EU at this year's negotiations will not be unconditional. What do we expect? The short answer would be: the implementation of the arrangements, concluded in Cancun, but to be more specific :

1. We expect the Durban conference to adopt a roadmap for adopting a legally binding international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global level. The industrialized countries will have to adopt mutually comparable burdens. This new agreement would have to be adopted no later than in 2015 and would have to enter into foce no later than in 2020 ;

2. We expect to reach agreement on higher ambitions of other countries. Their current plans to limit global warming to 2°C are getting close to only 60 % of the target. There is in fact a wide gap between the Cancun commitment in principle and the actual assumption of burdens by individual countries ;

And iin practical terms that requires: 

• An agreement on a common accounting system of measuring emissions to ensure reliable and comparable data

• An agreement on monitoring, reporting and supervising the implementation measures, in short, transparency and credibility

• Progress in arrangements to reduce emissions in the maritime and air transport  

• Technical corrections to the Kyoto Protocol, which will enable its environmental integrity

• An agreement on the contribution of developed countries to the climate fund. In the years 2010 ─ 2012, €30 billion should have been accumulated, and even more every year after that, and in 2020 the amount was expected to be as much as €100 billion. 

Sometimes I feel as if I live in a kind of virtual European environmental ideology. As if my colleagues and I are light years away from the reality of unemployed men and women of Europe, from the entrepreneurs whose services go unpaid and from the languishing banks which cannot finance innovative commercial projects. Unfortunately, other options, such as more efficient processes, better use of resources and promotion of creativity in the direction of sustainable society, are nowhere to be seen. Will the world be able to achieve "normalcy"? Can we again live ’’in harmony with nature’’? 

‘Can we once again become a part of the Earth, or will we remain its invaders?’