Promoting non-fossil energy such as wind power, China appears to be in the middle of an energy revolution to power its economy in a sustainable manner
China’s newly installed wind power capacity reached a record high in 2015 amid increasing efforts from the government to boost clean energy.
The Dabancheng wind farm in China’s Xinjiang province
The new wind power capacity jumped to 32.97 gigawatts last year, more than 60 percent higher than 2014, the National Energy Administration (NEA) said on Tuesday.
Wind power generated 186.3 terawatt hour of electricity in 2015, or 3.3 percent of the country’s total electric energy production, data showed.
Promoting non-fossil energy including wind power, China is in the middle of an energy revolution to power its economy in a cleaner and sustainable manner. The government aims to lift the proportion of non-fossil fuels in energy consumption to 20 percent by 2030 from present around 11 percent.
China’s energy mix is currently dominated by coal.
However, the NEA warned of the suspension of wind farms in Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Jilin. The phenomenon occurs in the early stage of wind power capacity construction due to the mismatching of new installation and local power grid.
King Mohammed VI of Morocco on Thursday in the south-central town of Ouarzazate officially launched the first phase of the solar plant “Noor I”, believed to be the largest Concentrated Solar Power(CSP) plant in the world.
King Mohammed VI of Morocco
This phase will be the first of three for the plant, which began construction in 2013, and by 2018 is predicted to supply 1.1 million Moroccans with 500 megawatts of energy. The plant will also reduce carbon emissions by 760,000 tons per year.
Noor I is regarded by many as a huge leap towards a more energy-independent and sustainable Morocco. By 2030, the country aims to utilise renewable resource for over half of its energy use. It is also possible that Morocco will have the capacity to “export energy to European countries,” according to the World Bank.
Speaking about the plant in December, Minister Delegate in Charge of Environment, Hakima El Haiti, discussed the use of highly advanced CSP plants and how they work by using “mirrors to focus the sun’s light and heat up a liquid, which is mixed with water and reaches a temperature close to 400 degrees Celsius.” She explained that “this produces steam, which in turn drives a turbine to generate electrical power.”
She added that the system allows for “the storage of energy for nights and cloudy days.”
Climate Investment Funds (CIF) have funded the $435 million plant via the African Development Bank and the World Bank. CIF has operated in 72 developing nations worldwide and is the largest multinational climate finance vehicle in the world, with an overall value of $8.1 billion. The stated aim of CIF is to transform countries like Morocco into world leaders in renewable energy, climate resilience and forest protection.
“Massive plunder” of the world’s fisheries is “destroying entire fishing communities”, Kofi Annan said on Thursday in Geneva, Switzerland at the launch of a new global initiative aimed at stemming illegal fishing.
Kofi Annan, chair of the Africa Progress Panel
In a video message to the first International Conference of the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI), Mr Annan, the chair of the Africa Progress Panel, welcomed the initiative and underlined the importance of “global collective action” to halt shadowy practices in ocean fishing across the globe.
The Fisheries Transparency Initiative is a high-level response to calls by the Africa Progress Panel and other influential voices for greater impetus to be given to tackle illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, which Mr. Annan says has reached “epidemic proportions” in Africa. The initiative aims to increase political will and international cooperation to improve the governance, transparency and accountability of the fisheries sector.
This activity by trawlers from all over the world operating in African waters, is according to Mr. Annan, “organised theft disguised as commerce” that “demands a strong, long-term international effort” to combat it.
Fisheries are among the most vital resources on the planet. The ocean off West Africa is one of the world’s richest fishing grounds, providing as much as a quarter of West Africans with their livelihoods.
The Africa Progress Panel calls for a multilateral fisheries regime that applies sanctions to fishing vessels that do not register and report their catches.
It also calls on governments around to world to ratify the Port State Measures Agreement, a treaty that seeks to thwart the poachers in port from unloading their ill-gotten gains.
The Panel also recommends regulatory reforms including processes to make fishing permits more transparent.
Above all, Mr Annan says, international coordination is essential: “This challenge is far greater than any single country can handle effectively on its own. It is also much more than just a problem for Africa. Global collective action is especially needed to nurture transparency and accountability. Better fisheries management could increase the global catch by 20 percent, bringing more jobs, better food and nutrition security, and more social and political stability too”.
Yaounde, Cameroon-based agro-socio-economist, Samuel Nnah Ndobe, attempts a brief assessment of the Paris Agreement and its implications for Congo Basin communities
The Paris Agreement and the financial incentives and initiatives it has spurred can help put indigenous and community rights at the heart of forest policies in Congo Basin countries
The negotiators who came to Paris from all corners of the earth for the climate change talks in December 2015 have long since dispersed. The colourful throngs of protestors are a distant memory. The world’s media have moved on to the next big story.
Now that the dust has settled on the latest international effort to prevent catastrophic rises in global temperatures, we can take stock of what the Paris Agreement, which was signed on December 12, really means for those who are already feeling climate change’s devastating effects – specifically the forest communities of the Congo Basin, home to the second largest tropical forests in the world, after the Amazon’s.
Many of them depend entirely on forests for their survival, but have been marginalised by the influx of logging and mining companies, and are now witnessing climate change threaten their food security, as wild fruits ripen prematurely, rivers dry up and subsistence hunting becomes more difficult.
Their plight has invariably been ignored in global efforts to halt emissions. Paris was a chance to rectify that. But to what extent did it succeed?
Among the large groupings at the climate talks were civil society members and delegates from the Congo Basin, with the countries negotiating under the auspices of the Central African Forests Commission (COMIFAC) and the Economic Commission of Central African States (ECCAS).
One of their central goals was spelled out by the DRC’s minister of environment: “We foresee the end of deforestation between 2020 and 2030. But someone has to pay the DRC’s efforts to re-establish its forests.”
This objective was broadly met, particularly in getting financial support for efforts to reduce deforestation in Congo Basin countries through the REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) financial mechanism.
The Paris Agreement includes forests and REDD+ prominently with a specific provision, Article 5. This article calls on countries to conserve and maintain forests as sinks. It also recognised results based payments to forested countries, and sets a long-term goal of net zero emissions by 2050, acknowledging the importance of removals of greenhouse gases by forests.
In most Congo Basin countries REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposals (RPPs), which set out plans, budgets and schedules for implementing the programme, clearly identify forest communities as the key drivers of deforestation, whereas in reality, the biggest threat in the Congo Basin comes from the countries’ desire to become emerging markets and industrialise their economies through large scale land acquisition activities, such as industrial agriculture, huge infrastructure construction projects, including dams, roads, ports and railway, mining and logging.
These have huge impacts on the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples, especially on their rights to their land. So to curb this, Congo Basin countries have to develop and respect social and environmental safeguards when implementing REDD+ and they must be monitored, reported and verified.
The Paris Agreement does recognise indigenous peoples’ rights, calling for “knowledge, technologies, practices and efforts of local communities and indigenous peoples related to addressing and responding to climate change” to be strengthened.
As welcome as this is however, a note of caution is needed, since this – and other references to indigenous’ rights – are in the non-binding section of the text and therefore carry no legal weight. It’s been suggested this is because the EU, the US and Norway were uneasy about the legal liability of any binding recognition of rights.
The Norwegian government announced during the COP that it was making $100 million available for initiatives respecting the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples, while Sweden has committed 11.5 million EUR to the tenure facility initiative, aimed at facilitating land and forest tenure for local communities and indigenous peoples in four countries, including Cameroon.
In a side event at the talks, the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), called for more countries to sign its joint declaration to tackle the causes of deforestation in Cameroon, the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea and the Republic of Congo (RoC). CAFI is made up of these six countries and various donors, including the European Union (EU) and World Bank, and aims to bring “new urgency to efforts to slash greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation”.
In summary, the Paris agreement and the financial incentives and initiatives it has spurred, can help put indigenous and community rights at the heart of forest policies in Congo Basin countries. Yet this will be at the whim of individual national governments.
And for them to act will require field monitoring, effective participation at REDD+ debates and processes, as well as concerted pressure and vigilance from communities, civil society and campaigners.
This presents a huge challenge in a region where rights over ownership, management and control of the forests have been denied to communities for so long and where deforestation continues to wreak havoc with peoples’ lives and the environment.
The European Parliament on Wednesday in Brussels, Belgium voted to oppose the import of three genetically modified (GM) soybeans into the European Union. It said the Commission’s proposed authorisation of GM soybeans MON 87705×MON 89788, FG72 and MON 87708×MON 89788 for use as food and feed was “not consistent with Union law” that aims at a high level of health and environmental protection.
The EU Parliament building in Brussels
It is the third time in a few months that the Parliament clashes with the Commission over its policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In October last year, MEPs rejected a flawed Commission proposal that would give national governments a theoretical right to ban GMOs approved for import.
They called on the Commission to develop a new proposal. In December, the Parliament also rejected the import of Monsanto’s GM maize NK603 × T25 and called for a moratorium on GMO authorisations until new rules are introduced.
Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, Slow Food and IFOAM EU have welcomed the Parliament’s stand against the Commission.
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner at Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “Today’s vote shows that GM-crops are unwanted by both people and the politicians they elect, and that the authorisation system for them is unfit for purpose. The European Commission must respect the decision-making power of the Parliament.”
Franziska Achterberg, EU food policy director at Greenpeace, said: “The Parliament’s message is loud and clear: the Commission cannot carry on taking decisions on GM crops by itself, without the backing of EU governments, parliament and citizens. The Commission needs to rethink the GMO approval system. Until it does, no new GM crops should be approved.”
Eric Gall, policy manager at IFOAM EU, said: “Importing these GM soybeans could expose consumers and farm animals in the EU to adverse effects from the herbicides they have been sprayed with and, to date, the effects of the herbicide plus GMO combination has not been assessed. Neither have the herbicide cocktails proposed. No herbicide-tolerant GMOs should be authorised until this has been done,”
Ursula Hudson, president of Slow Food Germany, stated: “No more than 13 out of 28 EU Member States voted in favour of allowing the import of these GM soybeans into the EU, whilst an equal number has voted against. Yet, the Commission authorises them. We urgently need a new authorisation mechanism as well as clear labelling for citizens to make informed choices.”
The three GM soybeans are engineered to tolerate spraying with glyphosate or a combination of glyphosate with other herbicides. Residues of these herbicides are likely to be found on imported grains. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen – that is, possessing the ability to induce the growth of cancerous cells. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has not assessed the risks associated with its use on GM crops, nor the effects of combinations of glyphosate with other herbicides. These combinations give rise to serious health concerns and EU law requires their evaluation.
The Parliament’s objection is not binding for the Commission.
The Bus, a sculptural memorial in honour of Ken Saro-Wiwa, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbooko, Paul Levera, Felix Nuate, Baribor Bera, Barinem Kiobel, and John Kpuine was shipped to Nigeria from the United Kingdom by Platform. On arrival in Nigeria it was seized by the Nigeria Customs since 8th September 2015 on the reported grounds that it had “political value.” The original idea was for the Bus to be used during the 20th anniversary activities to mark the dastardly execution of the Ogoni 9 on 10th November 2015. The kidnap of the Bus by the Nigeria Customs, as Celestine Akpobari, head of Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF) labels it, made it impossible for the cultural memorial to be used.
The late Ken Saro-Wiwa
Due to the continued detention of the sculpture by the Nigeria Customs, the OSF leader petitioned the House of Representatives of Nigeria seeking their intervention for the release of the sculpture. We note that the sculpture was created by Nigerian-born artist Sokari Douglas Camp.
The House of Representatives has so far held two hearings on the matter on 28th January and 4th February 2016. At the first hearing the Representatives were unhappy that the Comptroller of Customs did not appear before them. Again, at the second hearing the Customs boss was conspicuously missing, prompting the Representatives warning that they should not be provoked to issue an arrest warrant against the big man. The next hearing is scheduled for 17 February 2016.
One interesting fact that emerged from the hearing of 4th February was that the Customs officers stated that the the ‘inscription on memorial bus is a threat to national peace.”
What could possibly be the threatening inscription on the sculpture? The Bus has the name of Ken Saro-Wiwa on a white steel banner on one side, and the names of the other eight Ogoni leaders on sculptural crude oil barrels. It also has the words of Ken Saro-Wiwa: “I accuse the oil companies of practising Genocide against the Ogoni.” Would these threaten national peace?
It should be noted that this sculpture has been on display in the UK for nine years and was shipped to Nigeria by Platform on the request of network partners in Nigeria: Movement for The Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), Ogoni Solidarity Forum (OSF), Social Action, Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF) and Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN).
In his official submission to the House of Representatives, Akpobari said, “We are concerned that after killing Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni 8, and dumping their bodies in an unmarked grave, the Nigerian government is bent on erasing every memory of Saro-Wiwa and his struggles for justice, including making sure that a “Living Memorial” – the Bus made in his memory and in solidarity with his people – is never delivered to them.”
The Nigeria Customs appears to have chosen to fight a battle to erase the memories of these heroes of environmental and cultural struggles. Seizing a sculpture gives the impression that the State is attempting to kill the message after annihilating the messengers. With the experience of history, we can say that this is a futile endeavor and the Customs should release and deliver the Bus to the people of Ogoni as emblematic representatives of peoples struggling for ecological sanity, social inclusion and dignity.
If there are persons that wonder who Ken Saro-Wiwa and these leaders were, the words of Sanya Osha in a paper published in Socialism and Democracy gives a crisp picture:
“When Ken Saro-Wiwa and his nine Ogoni compatriots were hanged in November 1995, it both polarised and unified the fragile as well as volatile geographical entity known as Nigeria. However, this time, it wasn’t the ethnic and religious fissures that were most noticeable. Instead it was the naked fist of raw power versus the vociferous protestations of a disenfranchised minority writhing beneath the weight of a seemingly implacable military dictatorship.
“Ken Saro-Wiwa became the voice, face and symbol of this aggrieved minority straining for denied civic and democratic rights. He became a hero in patently unheroic times and this is what makes his life and the loss of it so potently poignant.”
It is for this and other reasons that 10th November has galvanised a global environmental justice movement and has become a global day of remembrance of victims of extractivism. And as Platform warns, They can hold the Bus but The can’t stop the movement.
There is no wisdom in keeping this sculptural Bus in captivity.
By Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation – HOMEF)
According to Josep Garí, head of the UN-REDD Programme’s work on stakeholder engagement and social inclusion as senior policy advisor at UNDP’s Sustainable Development Cluster, social inclusion is a key feature of REDD+
Josep Gari
Social inclusion is a key feature of sustainable development, including in REDD+, a new international policy and incentive scheme to address the forest-climate interface. Social inclusion is essentially about enabling local communities and marginalised groups to participate in, and benefit from the policies and measures that governments design, enact and implement for sustainable development.
In the context of REDD+, it typically concerns rights holders and other stakeholders that tend to be excluded in development processes, notably indigenous peoples and local communities whose livelihoods depend on forests, including equitably women, men and youth. Social inclusion thus refers to both the processes and the outcomes that surround the policy cycle. Critical in this work is not only to actively involve neglected actors in defining the policies for REDD+, but also to ensure the resulting policies are responsive to their development priorities, thus creating a cycle of social equality.
The UN-REDD Programme promotes these approaches and, accordingly, a number of its partner countries are already taking steps towards social inclusion in their REDD+ policy work. During the most recent FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Global Joint REDD+ Knowledge Exchange Day held in November 2015 in Costa Rica, a session was devoted to the sharing of pioneering experiences and approaches on social inclusion in REDD+ (watch video / access all presentations). It focused on two major features of social inclusion in REDD+: (i) the advancement of gender equality, and (ii) the realisation of the rights and development priorities of indigenous peoples and local communities.
Contrary to expectations, the coalesced about 15 interventions from government officials, representatives from indigenous peoples and civil activists from around the world, sharing the same view: REDD+ is not just a commitment to reduce the carbon footprint from forests, but also a gateway to embed social inclusion and gender equality in sustainable development concerning forests. Kenya opened the session by recognising that countries, although familiar with the technical requirements for REDD+, are insufficiently experienced in how to advance social inclusion and gender equality in their climate actions, including in REDD+.
The keynote presentation, dealing with the linkages between forests and gender, was delivered by a grassroots woman leader from Panama. She described the community-based, gender-responsive and women-led series of consultations on forests and REDD+ conducted in her country. This original process has not only empowered rural and indigenous women, but also crucially enabled them to inform national policy with their specific realities and insights. Other multi-stakeholder, inclusive consultations were simultaneously held in the country. If these grassroots perspectives are duly integrated, the resulting national policies will be more realistic and gain broader support, thus improving their performance as well as their contribution to social equality.
Showing a different approach to that of Panama, albeit complementary, Cambodia referred to the establishment of an inter-ministerial team on gender to promote and integrate a gender approach into its REDD+ national strategy. Building on these pioneer initiatives, the UN-REDD Programme representative of indigenous peoples in Latin America added that, under the auspices of the UN-REDD Programme, various indigenous women leaders have started a global dialogue process on how to mainstream gender in forest and climate programmes.
Concerning the realisation of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, Myanmar showed the steps its government is taking to engage ethnic minorities in the national REDD+ roadmap as well as in the process to develop the national strategy for REDD+. This represents a progressive effort in the country, serving to scope ways for inclusive development and thus strengthening the political transition to democracy.
Peru referred to the different types of local actors that have stakes in its forests and who often play divergent roles in both deforestation and forest conservation. This sort of complex realities demonstrates the value of multi-stakeholder engagement as the only means to craft policy options that will foster cohesion and equality among actors. Furthermore, Peru emphasised that social inclusion also means enhancing local livelihoods and the productive capacities of communities.
Complementing these exchanges, Costa Rica presented, with the support of a pedagogic video, its comprehensive stakeholder engagement process, describing the different practices employed, the challenges confronted and the lessons learned. Welcoming the inclusive approach of Costa Rica, a civil society activist from the region noted the importance of institutionalising the mechanisms for participatory policy making to secure their impact and durability. In a similar fashion, an indigenous leader from Southeast Asia highlighted the need of creating mechanisms for public participation early on in the policy cycle in order to ease the integration of social rights and equality considerations in the intended policy reforms.
Beyond participation and stakeholder engagement, social inclusion also requires concrete and lasting instruments. In this light, Kenya shared some of the initiatives its government has launched to build social inclusiveness in REDD+ in more institutional terms. For instance, a multi-stakeholder task force for transparency and accountability in REDD+ has been created and is already functional, bringing together representatives from government, the national anti-corruption agency and non-governmental actors. This task force has examined a number of issues and initiated response measures, including regulatory reforms in the Kenya Forest Service and training to forestry actors on anti-corruption practices. In addition, the Government of Kenya has commissioned an indigenous peoples’ organisation to conduct a participatory drafting of national guidelines for Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), to be employed – once reviewed and adopted by the public administration – in the design of forest carbon projects.
Ecuador also mentioned how the construction of the national REDD+ action plan served to position free, prior and informed consultations as an important tool to ensure the full and effective participation of key stakeholders when implementing REDD+ actions. As a result, the Ecuador’s Ministry of the Environment defined a blueprint for consultations for the implementation of REDD+ activities in the territories of indigenous peoples, which aligns with international provisions for consultation and participation of indigenous peoples.
Highlighting similar efforts, the UN-REDD Programme indigenous peoples’ Africa representative discussed how, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the multi-stakeholder platforms that REDD+ has been nurturing have enabled a number of social inclusion measures in the forest realm; they include a decree on community forestry, the choice of land-use and land tenure reforms as pillars of the national strategy for REDD+, which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in 2012, and a draft law in recognition and support of indigenous peoples, which is currently under consideration at Parliament.
In essence, several pioneering countries are already scoping and employing some approaches to drive social inclusion and gender equality in their policies for REDD+. Moving forward, these initiatives need to become more systematic, widespread and truly able to translate principles of social inclusion into concrete policy and institutional reforms. In fact, provisions for social inclusion are becoming central features of international agreements for REDD+, such as the joint declarations of intent on REDD+ in Colombia, the Congo Basin, Indonesia and Peru. Such provisions include the establishment of multi-stakeholder platforms to sustain the formulation of policies for REDD+ and the governance of climate funds, the recognition of the territorial and resource rights of indigenous peoples and local communities over forests, the imperative need to mainstream gender equality, and the promotion of participatory land-use planning.
In order to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals, the policies and measures for REDD+ should not only improve the carbon footprint of forest areas, but also address the rights and development priorities of forest-dependent indigenous peoples and local communities, including equitably women, men and youth. This requires robust mechanisms for public participation in policy-making, the mainstreaming of gender-responsive approaches, and courage with reforms so that REDD+ policy is transformational and a catalyst for equality. Although social inclusion is a key pillar in sustainable development, it is often the weakest one – hence the need for the pioneers to become the mainstream.
Countries, including members of the G20, should strengthen the credibility of their pledges to limit or reduce annual emissions of greenhouse gases in order to build confidence in the Paris Agreement on climate change, according to a new report published on Monday (February 1, 2016) by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Alina Averchenkova
The report provides the results of an analysis of “intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs, which were submitted by more than 180 countries ahead of the Paris climate change summit in December 2015, focusing on the credibility, rather than the ambition, of pledges about future emissions.
The report by Alina Averchenkova and Samuela Bassi concluded that “Governments have the opportunity to actively improve the credibility of their current and future commitments in their NDCs (nationally determined contributions), especially by strengthening: their policies and legislation; the transparency, effectiveness and inclusiveness of their decision-making process, and their climate change public bodies.
It added: “This can be done, for example, by: adopting framework legislation and/or implementing carbon pricing mechanisms; assigning clear responsibility for climate change policy and establishing independent consultative bodies; creating inclusive processes for consulting and involving stakeholders; increasing the frequency of preparing greenhouse gas inventories; and improving public awareness about climate change.”
Samuela Bassi
It identified key elements for the credibility against which each country’s pledges could be assessed. These were applied by the authors to the INDCs that were submitted by G20 members ahead of the Paris summit. They concluded: “Almost all the emission reductions pledged by G20 countries appear to be underpinned by policy and legislation that is at least ‘moderately supportive’ in terms of credibility. However, G20 countries’ emissions targets were found to score lower on the transparency, inclusiveness and effectiveness of their decision-making processes and the level of political constraints to limit policy reversal, and on the existence of dedicated and independent public bodies on climate change.”
The report states: “No INDC from a G20 country is found to have ‘no credible basis’ across all the determinants explored in this analysis. However, there are significant differences in the level of and balance among the determinants of credibility for the individual G20 members.
“For many G20 members, most determinants appear to be ‘largely supportive’ in terms of credibility. These include the European Union and its individual G20 members (France, Germany, Italy and the UK), as well as South Korea.
“Several G20 members have determinants that are at least ‘moderately supportive’ in terms of credibility, but display a significant weakness in one determinant; this includes Australia, Brazil, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, South Africa and the United States.
“A number of G20 countries have scope for significantly increasing credibility across most determinants. These are Argentina, Canada, China, India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia.”
Less than two months after 196 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, the global community is already seeing signs of it being a decisive turning point, according to a senior UN official dealing with climate issues.
Janos Pasztor, Senior Adviser to the UN Secretary-General on Climate Change
A month and a half since 196 parties to the UNFCCC adopted the Paris Agreement, the global community is already seeing signs of it being a decisive turning point, according to a senior UN official dealing with climate issues.
“Much has been happening since Paris – the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that 2015 was the hottest year on record, not just by a little but by a lot,” said Janos Pasztor, the newly appointed Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General on Climate Change.
For the past year, Mr. Pasztor had been leading the UN’s climate change efforts as Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change, working towards last December’s 21st United Nations climate change conference (COP21).
Recalling that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders to a signing ceremony on 22 April – which coincides with International Mother Earth Day – the climate advisor noted that it will be the first day the Agreement is open for formal signatures.
He said Mr. Ban is urging countries to quickly ratify the agreement so it can enter into force as soon as possible, adding that the event will also be an opportunity to discuss efforts to implement national climate plans, known as INDCs, and to generally “maintain the momentum of the action agenda.”
Meanwhile, he underlined the Secretary-General’s recent call for a doubling of investments in clean energy by 2020, which he said was greeted “very positively” by many investors.
“The Paris Agreement sent a clear message to markets and investors that it’s time to get serious about climate change. We’re now seeing evidence that the signal has been received loud and clear,” Mr. Pasztor stressed.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued by the UN Spokesperson’s Office, Mr. Ban expressed his deep gratitude for Mr. Pasztor’s “dedicated service and leadership” over the past quarter of a century with the world body on the key global challenges of climate change, energy and sustainability.
“In his new role as Senior Adviser to the Secretary-General on Climate Change, Mr. Pasztor will support efforts of the Secretary-General to mobilise world leaders and all sectors of society to implement the landmark Paris Agreement,” the statement indicated.
With the euphoria of Paris slowly fading, and the daunting reality of what remains to be done settling in, Richard Kinley, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary, in a recent presentation takes stock of what happened and where the world now needs to go
Richard Kinley, UNFCCC Deputy Executive Secretary. Photo credit: iisd.ca
Paris 2015 was the most successful climate change conference ever because:
The largest number of participants ever (28,000 delegates actually entered the premises), all well taken care of, with smooth logistics;
The largest number of heads of state and government together under one roof on one day – ever! – and they all could speak, providing a huge political push for success;
A remarkable spirit of cooperation and a determination among governments to reach agreement, enabled by outstanding diplomacy by the Presidency;
A huge array of events and side announcements constituting ample demonstration of momentum and engagement towards climate solutions; and
Finally, the Paris Agreement and its related decisions which constitute a turning point in the global efforts to deal with the climate change problem and chart a new course to a low carbon future.
All in all – a game changing outcome.
The adjectives that have flowed since the 12th of December are still music to my ears: “landmark”, “monumental triumph”, “historical moment”, “ambitious”. This makes a very pleasant change from years of coming to post-COP conferences like this and trying to sell lowest common denominator COP outcomes as progress. And even better is that, for the first time in history, the results of a COP actually exceeded the expectations of virtually everyone myself included.
“How has the game changed?” you may ask. I would offer eight ways.
Climate change mitigation is now firmly founded on national action; the orientation has shifted from a “top down” one, à la Kyoto Protocol, to one with a strong “bottom up” component based on national undertakings. This reflects the current reality of climate change politics and economics. The submission of INDCs before Paris in numbers no one ever contemplated affirms this new reality.
The global goal of limiting temperature change to below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial times had been agreed five years ago. In Paris, governments locked this in and went further by agreeing to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. I see this as an important statement of solidarity with vulnerable countries. Aspirational yes, but aspirations are extremely important in politics.
The inclusion of a more popularly-understandable long-term goal, alongside the below 2 degrees Celsius global temperature goal, was for me the most significant achievement. The inclusion in a legal Agreement of the concepts of “global peaking” and a “balance” between global emissions and removals –climate neutrality in other words – means that the policy certainty that the business sector has been seeking has been provided. While the timelines are imprecise, and open to debate, it is now clear to everyone that the era of fossil fuels is ending. And real transformation of the energy sector is the will, and undertaking of all the world’s governments, including fossil fuel exporters.
Linked to the long-term goal, the agreement on a process of global stocktaking every five years will systemise moving to more ambitious action. Again, the direction is clear, with an expectation of continuous improvement (no “backsliding”). There is a new stability in the international process.
The international architecture has shifted from a situation of strong differentiation between industrialised and developing countries to one that is much more nuanced. These nuances were possible because governments realised that enhanced action by all was needed. Differentiation is woven systematically throughout the Agreement, and in extremely astute ways, but while still launching the era of a single, universal system – common commitments with flexibility, reflecting national realities. Central to this success is the significantly enhanced attention to the need for support to developing countries to enable them to do more. There is a common direction of travel, but industrialised countries must lead the way.
Adaptation has come into its own. One could debate whether parity with mitigation has been achieved but adaptation, along with loss and damage, is now a pillar of the international climate change regime.
The “game” on finance, or means of implementation, has also changed. The “$100 billion goal” from the Copenhagen Conference was reaffirmed, to the relief of many, and it will be enhanced from 2025. More noteworthy are three new developments:
Significantly enhanced attention to reporting and assessment of support to developing countries as part of the transparency system, and as fundamental conditions of the success of the Agreement;
Recognition for the first time of the possibility of developing countries providing such support; and
A surprisingly robust outcome on capacity building to enable developing countries to fulfill their undertakings.
And on the sidelines of the COP, hugely important development initiatives were announced including on renewables for Africa, solar energy and billions in additional contributions, including for important small funds, to mention a few examples.
Finally, market approaches emerged with a new lease on life. The precise details are still to be worked out, but this was another surprise from Paris
I would like to highlight in particular another game-changing phenomenon alongside the Paris Agreement. Over the past two years we have seen an exponential growth in climate action by cities, regions, businesses, and civil society, in addition to national actions. This reality was, I believe, inspired by the Paris challenge but also an enabler of the ambitious Paris outcome.
The scope and scale of initiatives and announcements during the Paris Conference, some at the highest level, are breathtaking. With the adoption of the Paris Agreement, and the directional signal provided by the long-term goal, we can now look forward to this trend accelerating through a new sustainable growth model that is becoming a virtuous circle of action. While it is true that the profile of non-state actors in the Paris Agreement was less than many had hoped for, they are clearly becoming THE engine of both mitigation and adaptation action. This is helping to define a “new normal”, especially when one looks at:
Actions by investors (e.g. a record $330 billion in new clean energy investment in 2015);
At disinvestment initiatives (with managers of $2.6 trillion in assets acting) and closing of coal fired power plants;
At the rapidly declining price of renewable energy and the explosion of mega solar and wind power installations; and
Much wider mobilisation and engagement initiatives.
I feel obliged to say a word about process and procedure in Paris. Who can remember a smoother COP, with no procedural disputes? To what can one ascribe this success (this miracle?)? There was a clear timetable from the outset, for the ADP to close, and an efficient transition to French leadership. The COP President was clear on his intentions regarding texts. First that there was no “French text” (and there really was no French text), but only text built from Party consultations. It emerged in three pre-announced iterations, carefully and sometimes almost poetically constructed with, as Mr. Fabius promised, “no surprises”.
One can only hope that this experience will put to rest forever the idea that Parties can actually negotiate complex agreements line by line amongst themselves. Negotiation through Chair’s iterations is the only viable option for climate change negotiations. The French presidency was very transparent, consulting all groups, not just the powerful, not imposing its own ideas, working closely with Peru as a partner, and truly listening to what Parties were saying.
So, the game has changed, but is it “game over”/ ”problem solved”? Here one has to shift from euphoria to somber assessment. In real terms, the game is actually only just beginning. As Bill McKibben, of 350.org, has said: “the most compelling thing you can say about Paris is not that it saved the planet, but that it saved the chance of saving the planet.” We must beware of complacency, and actually need to be concerned that momentum is maintained and not lost. The task ahead is huge:
The INDCs, miraculous as they may be, are inadequate to the task. They are projected to get the world to somewhere near 3 degrees of warming. While this is a major shift of the trajectory of emissions, they need to be exceeded and to be strengthened, without waiting for 2023, or even the dialogue planned for 2018.
Global emissions are still rising. Impacts of climate change are going to increase in frequency and magnitude. The Agreement calls for global peaking as soon as possible, and this must come in the next 5-10 years.
The intergovernmental process has a huge task ahead in fulfilling the mandates given to it by the Agreement and the COP decision – developing modalities and rules, getting institutions off the ground or shifted into a higher gear, putting the transparency regime in place and getting as many signatures for the Agreement on 22 April.
The promise of enhanced support for developing countries has to be fulfilled or much of the Agreement’s promise will be lost. Such support will be crucial to implementing and strengthening the INDCs, to meeting the transparency requirements, and to formulating low-emission development plans.
In conclusion, let me share my assessment of why the Paris Conference achieved what it did. There are many reasons for this, but allow me to highlight four:
First, underlying economic realities have shifted to the point where real change is not only possible, but also these realities have shaped a “new normal” in the “real economy”.
Second, there was a strong, almost palpable, determination by all governments, evident even on the first day, to have an agreement. Ample opportunities to block were not exercised; “red lines” change to “green lines”; compromise was in the air! Strong leadership, and flexibility, were demonstrated by all of the key players on issues like adaptation, loss and damage, differentiation and finance. And the leaders of the most powerful as well as the most vulnerable countries were personally involved in Paris or behind the scenes.
Third, I would point to the role of France, the host country, driven by the COP President, Laurent Fabius – the hospitality, the astute political leadership and effective diplomacy over many months, the listening, the honest-broker role, the willingness to push the envelope and insert in the Agreement ambitious language, nuanced language, so that everyone could come away feeling that they had won something.
Fourth, perhaps the most fundamental enabler of the success of Paris was the realisation that all must participate in solving the huge global challenge posed by climate change.
