The waffle is a famous Belgian speciality, so perhaps it should be no surprise that there seems to be plenty of waffle on the menu for EU leaders when they discuss the EU's position for the international climate negotiations at this week's EU summit (19-20 March) in Brussels.

A clear EU position for the UNFCCC climate negotiations was supposed to be decided at this summit, after environment ministers and finance ministers both passed the buck over the past few weeks. Despite the European Commission having presented a detailed outline for an EU position in January, current drafts of the summit 'conclusions' (i.e. the potential outcome) are vague and lack ambition.

There is already a lot of pessimism about the possibility of securing a global climate deal the UN climate talks (COP15) in Copenhagen in December this year - the deadline agreed at the COP13 in Bali. With high profile criticism being directed at the governments of industrialised countries. If the EU continues to take a back seat and fudge its negotiating position, this pessimism will justifiably grow.

Given the ever narrowing window of opportunity we have to reduce global emissions to try and prevent dangerous climate change, failure at Copenhagen would nothing short of a disaster. For the EU to play a causal role in such a failure (such as by not properly engaging in the negotiations), would be a disgrace after all the bluster and waffle about being a global leader on climate change over the past years.

Our almighty leaders must know what an acceptable EU position would be. NGOs, Green politicians and other countries in the UNFCCC have been spelling it out for long enough.

The EU has endorsed the findings of the UN IPCC. This requires industrialised countries to reduce their emissions 25-40% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels). Given the EU's historical responsibility, it must commit to reductions at the top of this scale i.e. 40% by 2020. It must also commit to deliver the bulk of these domestically and not buy purchasing cheap offsets in developing countries.

The EU also needs to put a clear position on the table as regards providing sufficient funding for climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts in developing countries. A realistic and credible international agreement would include industrialised countries providing at least €100bn per year by 2020. Based on its responsibility, the EU must be willing to provide €35bn of this at the very least, with the funding to come outside of traditional development aid budgets.

There is also a need to decide on the financing mechanism. What is important is that not only is there a predictable and guaranteed source of funding (preferably under UN control) but also that there is an effective system in place that ensures the funds are used effectively and for the ends intended.

The time for waffle and fudge is over. With the next round of serious UNFCC negotiations due to start by the end of the month, it is time for the EU to step up to the plate. The alternative is unthinkable.