Session’s theme: How can SDGs be enforced not only in national, but also in local level as well?
Objective: How cities can be made more open (in terms of access), resilient and livable?

An interesting side event took place on the 13th of November at Bonn Zone (COP23, Bonn, Germany)  with the purpose of “How transport sector (mobility) can be better leveraged with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?” under the event – Global Climate Action and SDG 11 Round Tables: Creating Green and Inclusive Transport for Liveable and Resilient Cities.

The meeting began with all the panelists sitting on their respective positions around the roundtable with respected Ms. Mary Cross, Head of Institutional Relations and Summit at the International Transport Forum (ITF), Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) serving as the moderator and thus conducting a short introductory round of all the panelists present.

Ms. Mary, after an introductory round of all the speakers, emphasized on the point:

“Transport – is not fully a part of SDGs, but to achieve the salient features and ambitions of the SDG 11 i.e. “Sustainable Cities and Communities” – ‘transport sector’ plays a pivotal role in achieving it.”

She also drew attention of the mass towards the target 11.2 of the SDG 11 which goes as:

“By 2030, there should access to safe, affordable, accessible and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons.”

A series of panelists thereafter with the session’s theme and objective presented their talks as follows:

Najib Boulif (Morocco’s Secretary of State in charge of Transport)
Mr. Najib said that Morocco is one of the first countries to ratify Paris Agreement at COP 21. The principal themes for framework in Morocco are as follows:

• Urban Planning (Transport important in that)
• Reduction in the need to travel
• Sustainable Urban Transport (Electrification of vehicles)

Jean-Pierce Loubinoux, Director General, International Union of Railways (UIC)
Mr. Jean stated that in the context of achieving SDG 11 in urban settings, Railways in near future will cut 60% of its greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions and energy usage. He also pointed out to the stunning fact that railways contribute to only 2% of total GHGs emissions worldwide. According to International Energy Agency (IEA) and the International Union of Railways (UIC), the railway companies in operation globally generate less than 1% of total CO₂ emissions (IEA, 2011a; UIC, 2011b). He said that according to IEA and OECD the energy consumption in Railways is the lowest of all urbanized motorized transport.

He then focused on the “Optimized complementary mode of mobility” i.e. no competition anymore elsewhere and urged on the need to find actions and ways to make this happen. He said that upon achieveing it, the return would be 5 times better than the investment. He further added on how to improve the efficiency in transport sector – is the key!

Lucila Capelli, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Transport, Argentina
Ms. Lucila started with how mobility and transport is important in Argentina. She said that the SDG 11 is focused in cities, and therefore, Argentinean transportation plan is focused in cities as in Buenos Aires (the Argentinean capital) where 15 million people live in suburbs only and thus one could easily assume about the daily commute scenario out there. The Argentinean target is to reduce potent GHGs such as: CO₂, SOx, NOx and effective promotion of the Public transport system as an astounding 22 million people commute everyday in Buenos Aires. She said that in 2018, the pilot programs for Busses and Taxis will be conducted for low emission targets and will be focused on vulnerable population.

Franz R. Drees-Gross, Director for Transport and ICT Global Practice, World Bank
Mr. Franz spoke to the fact that transportation sector accounts for 7-8 Gtns of global emissions. He said that the transport sector is increasing drastically, especially in developing countries. He emphasized on limiting global emissions from transport sector to 9 Gtns by 2050 and thus affirmed that it is only possible through shifting to the public transport and this must be focused strictly in developing nations. At last, he suggested avoiding daily commute in cities by creating dense cities.

Frank Muehlon, Global Head of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, ABB
Mr. Frank was the one-and-only panelist present with the ‘Industrial’ background in the session. He came up with the point that there needs to be a good National and Regional interconnection – i.e. a complementarity is required in transport sector.

Ms. Mary raised a question to Mr. Frank: “What type of system and partnership can be created for a sustainable transportation system?”

He humbly replied saying:

“You want to have a development which is not hyped – but is sustainable.”

He further said that in the transportation sector, the (business) partner from whom one buys the technology – is reliable – matters the most in the market place. He said that railways have been more standardized than before but electric motor vehicles nowadays are getting better standardized as never before. He further focused on the fact that the electrification of electric motor vehicles across the globe right now has regional differentiation – such as – in China, Europe and the USA due to their own differing charging technologies.

Hence, he urged on the necessity and vital significance of having a global partnership on electric motor vehicles electrification technologies in an openly manner.

Paul Simons, Deputy Executive Director, IEA
IEA is tracking decarbonization. He said that by 2030, 30% of all fleets are going to be electric. He emphasized that data, tracking, policy, and analysis is important as well. In the year 2015, only one-fourth of electric vehicles sales were recorded. He said that IEA wants cities to develop database and policy to communicate effectively.

Young Tae Kim, Secretary General, International Transport Forum (ITF)
The question on the floor for Dr. Young was that how electrification is one of the solutions to solve the existing problem of decarbonization in transport sector. He answered saying, ITF tries to go beyond the transportation sector. It should develop society.

He further said:

 “From holistic point of view, cities should have sustainable transport system like human bodies have static (city) organs and moving blood (transport).”

Dr. Young pointed on ITF’s role on modifying indexes such that ITF combines all elements to share and collect information from around the world, thus, striving to improve in the future!

Clayton Lane, CEO, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
The question to Clayton from the moderator, Ms. Mary Cross, was that ‘how cities can get to SDG 11?’

He responded saying that, cities are left with hard work in near future and ITDP’s role is to connect global agenda.

E.g.: In Rio de Janaerio, Brazil, it takes on an average 2-3 hours to commute (no rapid transit) as only 23% of population has access to rapid transit BUT with the ‘government devised policy’, 90% of  population will have access to rapid transit.

In Maharashtra and Jharkhand states of India, ITDP is building and enhancing knowledge and capacity tools at state level in association with different genders. This will help 80% of population to get access to Metro trains as per matching population density with location of Metros.

Mr. Clayton concluded by saying that:

“To know how to measure and articulate is very important.”

The post COP23: Creating green and inclusive transport appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“I hear no objections, it is so decided.”

As observer in the Bula zone, this sentence was the most heard during the first days of the 23^rd Conference of the Parties . Most meetings in the first days of the COP23 still dealt with organizational matters, such as agreeing on the structure of following meetings. The interventions by parties appeared rather repetitive to me, which is probably caused by the diplomatic character of the sessions. Almost everybody started their comments by thanking Fiji and Germany for hosting this year´s COP and stressing out how much they appreciate the previous work and look forward to fruitful discussions with tangible outcomes.

The negotiations in the Bula zone are carried out in many parallel meetings of the following working groups/ bodies:

• Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA),
• Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI),
• Conference of the Parties (COP),
• Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA),
• Conference of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP),
• Conference of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA)

Each group has a long list of agenda items that they work on during the two weeks in Bonn. For more detailed information on what the COP23 is all about, read this GCE post. Due to the vast number of parallel meetings and increasing restrictions for observer presence in sessions, it was impossible for us four observers from the Global Change Ecology programme to get a full overview of what´s going on each day in the negotiations at Bula zone. Luckily, there are many media teams, climate activists and other NGOs who provide very helpful daily briefings, such as the Climate Tracker.

I mainly attended informal consultations of the SBSTA, e.g. on systematic observation and research, and the big COP plenary meetings. In the course of the first week, I could observe how the negotiations went from structural issues to more technical, content-based discussions. Some of the bodies already produced informal notes and draft texts which ultimately will lead to the creation of a rulebook for the
implementation of the Paris Agreement.

According to the big COP stock-taking plenary on Saturday and an overview article by Climate Tracker, the main points being discussed in the different bodies in the first week of COP23 have been:

Pre-2020 actions
The Paris Agreement commitments only begin in 2020. However, as the COP president Frank Bainimarama says: “We must not waste time”. For this reason, especially developing countries, demanded pre-2020 actions to already get started with mitigation activities to combat climate change and have a chance at limiting global warming to below 1.5°C in comparison to pre-industrial levels. This is very crucial for island states, for example in the Caribbean. Unfortunately, so far the pre-2020 ambitions have not been assigned to any working group or official agenda item of this year´s COP.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)
One of the main points being discussed in this context is how and when the reporting and updating of the NDCs should take place. Developing countries and developed countries might face differentiated processes here.

Loss and Damage
As nicely explained by Climate Tracker: “loss and damage is a concept where rich countries, who have historical responsibility for climate change, are asked to be liable to developing countries, who are already facing climate change impacts.” Unfortunately, negotiations on this topic ended in controversial discussions when some developed countries questioned the scientific evidence necessary to correlate extreme weather events/natural disasters with climate change.

Finance
One of the crucial issues for the implementation of the Paris Agreement is the finance of all required measures, e.g. in form of an Adaptation Fund which can help the developing countries to tackle climate change impacts.

Talanoa dialogue
Also known as Facilitative dialogue, the Talanoa dialogue has been introduced by the Fijian COP presidency to have inclusive, participatory and transparent conversations in which people listen to each other and respect the other one´s perspective. It is supposed to be held in 2018.

Other important topics covered in the meetings were the reporting guidelines/ implementation for adaptation and mitigation, the global stock-take, a gender action plan and features, such as transparency, equity, capacity building and technology transfer.

The parties still have a lot of work ahead and with ministers arriving in the second week of COP23, one can hope that negotiations progress faster and that the delegates agree on how to implement the different components of the Paris Agreement.

I feel honored to be given the unique opportunity to observe the negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference 2017. I felt overwhelmed by the number of events taking place at the same time and also by the engagement and interest that NGOs demonstrated at Bonn zone and within negotiations.

The post COP23: Wrap-up first week appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Bula! from the UN-Climate Conference in Bonn. Bula is Fijian for “life” and is most commonly used as a greeting, wishing one good health. In this article we want to present an overview of what the COP23 is about.

The UN-Climate Conference takes place from 6 – 17 November 2017 in Bonn under the Presidency of Fiji. It is the 23rd meeting of the Parties of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) as well as the 13th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) and the second meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA). This year’s primary task is to discuss the implementation of the Paris Agreement of 2015, which should ultimately result in a so-called “Book of Rules” that is to be approved during the next COP24 in Katowice, Poland.

Alongside the official negotiations of the parties, there are also many side events and exhibitions taking place in the framework of the conference. Though these are only to be attended with an official registration, there are also possibilities for citizens to visit various event throughout the city.

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Fiji in Germany?” collapse_text=”Fiji in Germany?”]

First questions first. Why is the Conference taking place in Bonn when it is under Fijian Presidency?

Formerly, the hosting procedure was such that the holder of the COP presidency was also hosting the conference. Last year, however, no country from the UN Group Asia that was slated to host the meeting of the parties was willing to take over presidency. To fill the vacancy, the Republic of Fiji was prepared to take on the chair of the Conference but could not host the conference for organisational reasons. Under these circumstances, the regulations of the UNFCCC require that the conference be hosted in Bonn, where the UN climate secretariat is located.

The Republic of Fiji is a small island state in the South Pacific and is already strongly affected by climate change. Sea level rise, the salination of soils, and hurricanes threaten the 890,000 inhabitants of Fiji, as well as residents of other small island states in the Pacific. Over the last several years, Fiji took over the leadership of climate action in this region and was the first nation to sign the Paris Agreement. As Fiji now holds Presidency of COP23, this current conference has a strong emphasis on the fate of small island states when facing climate change impacts.

[/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Bula Zone and Bonn Zone” collapse_text=”Bula Zone and Bonn Zone”]

Why are there two zones and what is the difference?

The Climate Conference is divided into two zones: the Bula Zone and the Bonn Zone.

The negotiations and official meetings of the parties take place within the Bula Zone. This is likewise where the main plenary located. Allowed entrance in this zone is limited to delegates and official observers. This year, Global Change Ecology four observer spots; eight students and alumni (four per week) have the possibility to follow the negotiations in person. However, for some topics the meetings are only open to participants (observers are not allowed).

The Bonn Zone is another conference building some distance away from the Bula Zone. This is where the Side Events take place. A huge exhibition area for NGOs and other organisations is located within this zone, and there are additional pavilions representing many countries where information about the local culture and climate action can be found. For COP23, GCE has 15 additional spots for the Bonn Zone, meaning another 30 students are able to attend Side Events and have a look at the exhibitions and actions. In the Bonn Zone you can also find the GCE exhibition booth.

[/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”What to expect from COP23?” collapse_text=”What to expect from COP23?”]

Some of the most pressing issues that will be discussed during the negotiations

After the successful drawing up of the Paris Agreement, it is now time to decide how this agreement can be implemented. There are some topics that have to be decided, amongst others the rules for the implementation, the NDCs, the Talanoa Dialogue, and loss and damage financing.

Rules for Implementation
One of the most important agenda items is the setting of the rules for the implementation of the PA. This should result in a so-called “Book of Rules” that is to be approved during the next COP24 in Poland.

“A major issue will be on how to produce a negotiating text that is Party-driven and inclusive, balanced on all the elements, and reflects the positions of all Parties.”^[1] The question of how to differentiate between developed and developing countries will also be heavily discussed.

NDCs
The purpose and interpretation of the NDCs will be another controversial item. Most of the parties focus mainly on the mitigation component of the NDCs, whereas the LMDC (Like Minded Group of Developing Countries), the African and the Arab Group believe the scope of the NDCs covers besides mitigation also adoption and means of implementation.

Another key point will be what kind of information parties should report back regarding their contributions. Many parties stress that mitigation efforts should be reported in CO2-eq (Carbon dioxide equivalents), so as to be fully quantifiable; others, such as the LMDC, believe that comparison is not the purpose for this kind of information.

Facilitative Dialogue 2018
In the Paris Agreement, parties have decided to “convene a facilitative dialogue among Parties in 2018 to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties”. This dialogue was organised by the Presidencies of COP22 and COP23. They provide an informal note in which they refer to the Facilitative Dialogue as “Talanoa Dialogue” and ensure that “the dialogue will be conducted in the spirit of the Pacific tradition of Talanoa” which is “a traditional approach used in Fiji and the Pacific to engage in an inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue” with the purpose of sharing “stories, [to] build empathy and trust.”

This dialogue “will be structured around three general topics: where are we, where do we want to go, and how do we get there.”

Loss and damage
As the COP23 is the first COP to be hosted by a Small Island State, there is hope that this year will feature a greater focus on Small Island Developing States (SIDS) alongside other developing countries. As these states are already hit hard by climate change impacts, it is crucial to find ways to generate and provide finance for loss and damage. There are, however, prominent voices that fear that developed countries seek to delay a result-oriented debate about the providence of finance for developing countries.

^[1] https://www.twnetwork.org/climate-change/what-expect-fiji-cop

[/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”NDCs and Fair Shares” collapse_text=”NDCs and Fair Shares”]

Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are the pledged efforts of the participating nations to reduce national emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. In contrast to other climate protection standards that are legally determined at a conference of the parties, every country can decide for itself how high its NDCs should be.
Countries are obligated to update and communicate their NDCs in 2020. Countries cannot, however, be punished if they fail to fulfil their commitments. Germany, for example, is likely failing to meet its climate targets for 2020, which is to reduce emissions by 40%. Experts estimate that – without any additional action – emissions can be reduced at most by 30%.
However, even if all countries would be able to meet their goal, there would be still a massive emissions gap (see also: “Critical Voices”), as the actual NDCs are not alone sufficient to meet the goal of staying well below 2°C. The NDCs are expected to be implemented from 2021 onwards; however, there is also a call for a bigger focus on pre-2020 actions, especially from the developing countries. These countries are concerned that developing areas won’t be able to meet even their existing obligations under the Kyoto protocol while shifting their focus to the time following 2020.

Fair Shares are the amount of contributions countries should pledge because of their global responsibility. These share depend upon historical responsibility (e.g. how much these countries have already emitted) and their capacity to act. Different countries must consequently act differently.
The issue remains that some countries, such as America and the EU, have a higher amount of Fair Shares than their total domestic decarbonisation. How can these nations fulfil their Fair Shares?
The solution could be to help other countries whose Fair Shares are still lower than their total decarbonisation. China, for example,still has a very low contribution to make, as it has not emitted a high quantity during past centuries. Because it is presently emitting massive amounts of CO2, it must be the duty of the other countries to fulfil their Fair Shares while assisting China with its decarbonisation.^[1]

^[1] For more information see: http://www.cidse.org/publications/climate-justice/equity-and-the-ambition-ratchet.html

[/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”America’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement” collapse_text=”America’s Withdrawal From the Paris Agreement”]

“The bottom line is that the Paris accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States.” – President Donald Trump [1]

On June 1st 2017 US President Trump announced the United States’ intentions to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. Being the last state which has had not yet signed the Agreement, Syria affirmed its commitment for the Paris climate change accord on the second day of the Climate Conference in Bonn, leaving the US quite isolated in international climate change policy. However, according to the guidelines of the Paris Agreement, the US cannot exit the contract until November 2020. Until then, the US will continue to be party.

In a media note from August 4th 2017 the US State Department announced that it will continue to participate in the meetings in order to “to protect U.S. interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration. Such participation will include ongoing negotiations related to guidance for implementing the PA.”

“This is”, says Meena Raman from the Third World Network, “like a marriage in which you have already announced that you’ll divorce in four years, but you still want to have a saying on how many children you want to have.”

There is, however, a countermovement. With the slogan “We are still in” many US citizens and representatives of US Cities and States have expressed their commitment to climate action and their disagreement with the official American policy direction. Prominent examples are the former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, California Governor Jerry Brown, and his predecessor Arnold Schwarzenegger. As the official American Delegation was unwilling to set up a pavilion within the Bonn Zone, the U.S. Climate Action Center built an “unofficial” American pavilion between the Bula and the Bonn Zone. From this pavilion they inform about climate initiatives and actions in the US and assure the international community: We are still in.

[1] http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/335955-trump-pulls-us-out-of-paris-climate-deal

[/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Sustainability of such an event?” collapse_text=”Sustainability of such an event?”]

Should climate scientists come together and cause large emissions to discuss about emission reduction?

As a huge event like a climate conference has a huge carbon footprint, it is necessary to take measures to ensure that COP23 is as sustainable as possible. As a voluntary commitment, COP23 aims to be EMAS (Eco Management and Audit System) certified. EMAS is an environmental management scheme based on EU regulations, requiring the use of renewable energies, waste management, and a general sustainable use of resources.

Waste:
In order to prevent the production of waste, the UNFCCC Secretariat and the German government utilize an electronic data transmission system and all exhibitors are urged not to distribute printed materials. Even though the sustainability guidelines are very clear, many exhibition booths still provide lots of flyers and printed material. There is, however, a strong effort made to enhance the distribution of electronic data. Waste bins encourage the separation of waste and every participant is given a drinking bottle that could be refilled at water dispensers located widely across the conference area. In addition, all temporary structures can be used again for future conferences.

Food:
UNFCCC claims that the food provided would be “mostly vegetarian”, with the aim to make at least 50% of the products regional and organic. Served meat are also always organic and fish is consistently certified. During lunch hours, there were usually three meals: one with fish, one with meat, one vegetarian. Even though this menu plan might be less meat than at former COPs, it certainly cannot be declared as “mostly vegetarian”.

Nature Conservation:
According to the COP23 webpage, no trees were felled in order to build the secondary structures; and, following COP23, the Bonn Zone “Rheinaue” area will be regreened using turf.

Mobility:
All participants were encouraged to offset their travelling CO2 emission (see also: “CO2 Offsetting”). Free bicycles were provided throughout the conference and electro shuttles could be used to commute between the Bula and Bonn Zones. Additionally, free local transport was provided for conference participants.

CO2 Offsetting:
Unavoidable CO2 emissions will be offset by supporting projects in Small Island Developing States. Institutions, organisations, and conference participants also have the possibility to offset their own carbon footprint with UNFCCC’s Climate Neutral Now initiative. [/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Critical Voices” collapse_text=”Critical Voices”]

Perhaps the Paris Agreement is not as good as they want us to believe…

Though the Paris Agreement was broadly celebrated as a groundbreaking milestone in international climate negotiations, there are still many elements worthy of serious criticism. Many critical voices could be heard during this COP, inside the Bula Zone, in the Bonn Zone side events, and outside during the many demonstrations.

Emission Gap
One of the biggest issues is featured centrally in the latest “Emissions Gap Report” by the United Nations Environment Programme. It shows that the currently stated NDC’s cover approximately only one third of the emission reduction needed to reach the goal of staying well below 2°C. That means that even if every country fulfils its pledge, we will head into a world with 3°C of heating or more. If this emission gap is not closed before 2030, it is extremely unlikely that we can stay well below 2°C.

Private Business and Lobbyism
Another criticism often raised is that of lobbyism. NGOs claim that many politicians are connected with oil, gas, and/or coal concerns. The Netherlands’ Minister for Finance has worked for Shell in Berlin, Hamburg, and Rotterdam. Norway plays a significant role in the negotiations but continues its offshore drilling. Germany promotes itself as a forerunner in climate politics but still uses coal for energy production and will most certainly not meet its emission targets by 2020. Many claim that the “big polluters” need to be kicked out before there can be efficient, climate-friendly negotiations.

Slow Process
The negotiations around the Paris Agreement are very slowly progressing. This can be very frustrating, especially as the time to effectively tackle climate change is extremely limited. However,it is consistently challenging to have meaningful discussions with so many stakeholders and differing interests. As there is traditionally a decision at the beginning of the COP that every decision must be taken by consensus, there must be many compromises made, much goodwill shown. To return to the marriage analogy: The Paris Agreement was like the marriage itself. Everyone was euphoric. Now we find ourselves two years into this marriage and the enthusiasm has faded away. Sometimes it is necessary to let go of a bit of the “you” to be able to work on the “we”.

Missing Topics
There is also criticism by various parties that some important issues are not featured in the Paris Agreement. Likewise, certain topics are included but are not discussed and/or implicated. Amongst others, specific climate actions, slowing ongoing disasters, intergenerational equity, mentally disabled people, and the option of a radical reorganisation of our capitalism dominated system are left largely unaddressed. [/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Outlook” collapse_text=”Outlook”]

What comes next…

Admittedly, COP has a lot of standing issues that must be solved–and solved soon. And yet, it is the best option we have at present, and there is little to indicate that there will be a better option within the next few years (if it is even possible to create something better in that dimension). We have to hope, therefore, that the parties are ready to deal with the climate impacts in an efficient and committed way.

We will see during the next week how much the Parties can accomplish, how many concrete actions for the implementation can be defined. Until then, it is our duty to express our own commitment–and our unwillingness to live in a 2°C warmer world. [/bg_collapse]

[bg_collapse view=”link” color=”#117BB8″ icon=”arrow”  expand_text=”Further reading” collapse_text=”Further reading”]

Official COP23 website:
https://www.cop23.de/

Excellent overview on what to expect at COP23:
https://www.twnetwork.org/climate-change/what-expect-fiji-cop

Analyses the NDCs of countries and much more:
http://climateactiontracker.org/

Our personal wrap-ups of week 1:

[/bg_collapse]

The post Everything you need to know about COP23 appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“Forests play a huge role in our efforts to tackle climate change” – Manuel Pulgar-Vidal

On Sunday, a series of events under an initiative called Forests Global Climate Action were given in COP23 Bonn zone. Here, many countries and corporations have shown that by establishing sustainable forestry management, it is possible to cut emissions. During the opening event, Inger Andersen, Director General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) said that

“nature-based solutions such as protecting and restoring forests can contribute over one-third of the total climate change mitigation required by 2030 to keep the temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius”.

Indeed, forest ecosystems represent a key role not only because its potential in the Climate Change mitigation but also for being a mean of community and ecosystems adaptation and resilience building as Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Head of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Programme, held:

“Forests play a huge role in our efforts to tackle climate change – the science behind their contributions is clear. Protecting forests will ensure they continue to absorb emissions from the atmosphere, protect biodiversity, and provide livelihoods for forest-dependent peoples”.

However, it was also recognized by different speakers along the events that more decisive and collective action is still needed to seize the opportunity that forests represent, since destructive [often illegal] logging and deforestation continues:

“After 10 years of REDD programme, we need a broader approach that include more action, leadership and partnership” – Charlotte Streck, Co-founder and Director of Climate Focus

“Funding for forests should also combat illegal activities and forest degradation by incorporating prevention and detection activities” – Davyth Stewart, Head of Project Leaf of Interpol

Under this context, as the enabling conditions to advance implementation and enhance Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) through forests were detailed.

Commitment by Private Sector

Jeff Seabright, Chief  Sustainability Officer at Unilever and moderator of one of these events, concluded that strong collaboration and urgent and ambitious action between State and non-State actors is definitely required in the elimination of deforestation from commodities supply chain. Here, four were detailed as the key commodity areas: palm oil, soybean, feed for livestock (basically associated with beef consumption) and paper (of cellulose pulp derived from wood).

Fernando Sampaio, Executive Director of PCI Strategy at the State of Mato Grosso in Brazil, the largest exporter of commodities, assured that they are experiencing a transition to a more sustainable and inclusive state. Based on partnerships and commitments between the sub national government, industries and smallholders, they are looking to be known as a region that provides without forest degradation goods and services.

On the side of the companies, Kevin Rabinovitch, Global Vice President of Sustainability at Mars Inc., presented a new policy to reduce their carbon footprint 27% by 2025 and 67% by 2050 by addressing deforestation throughout their corporate value chain. In the same way, Laura Phillips in behalf of Walmart’s Senior Vice President of Sustainability, informed about their commitment to deforestation-free commodities and emphasized its importance due to Walmart as the end of the supply chain, being in direct contact with customers.

Contribution of indigenous peoples

On the other hand, Roberto Espinoza, Technical Adviser of Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana (AIDESEP) explained that contribution of indigenous peoples is vital to achieve climatic commitment and even go further, since Paris Agreement has asked for more ambitious pledges.

Additionally, he said that INDCs will not be accomplished with isolated actors. For this reason, he presented some measures that Coordinadora de las Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica (COICA) suggests, particularly to the Amazon region:

• Land rights and titles for more than 20 million ha, which would work as deforestation frontiers
• Autonomy over their territories, which allows them to rule under their holistic vision of the indigenous peoples that gives the actual value to the standing forest
• Indigenous monitoring, verification and revision, supporting the already established national strategies
• Indigenous REDD and a NDC “minga” (that in native language means with collective approach), which can add ambition to the NDCs already given by the nine countries that comprise the Amazon basin

Incubator for Nature Conservation

At the afternoon, IUCN launched a new programme called Incubator for Nature Conservation which seeks to help nurture and shape innovative ideas for making and channeling revenue to finance protected areas, answering to the question can a protected area be a good business?

In this context, it was presented one of the partner sites: Cordillera Azul National Park (CIMA) a 13 500 – km cloud forest in the Peruvian Amazonian jungle, which holds habitats with many endemic and protected species. It has been faced threats from land-trafficking, logging, migratory and industrial agriculture and illegal crops. There are no human settlements within the park itself, but more than 520 villages in its buffer zone including 32 indigenous communities and evidence of an isolated indigenous population from the Kakatiabo ethnic group in the southeast of the park. The national park is financed through the Althelia Climate Fund and the loan received by them is repayable through the sale of carbon credits… what, unfortunately, has not worked as expected. A second financing phase now needs to be designed, under a new regulatory national framework and working with IUCN experts directly to develop and implement solutions, ranging from other approaches for carbon financing to ecotourism to sale of products from the area.

Successful experiences will serve as model for setting up workable financing systems in protected areas around the world.

The post COP23: Forest day appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

On the third day of the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2017, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) hosted several side events on forest landscape restoration in their pavilion at the Bonn zone.

An analysis conducted by the IUCN and Climate Focus revealed that only 8 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) have unconditional concrete targets related to the forest sector, although 77% of the NDCs mention the importance of forests to achieve the Paris Agreement target. As stated in the sessions, mangrove restoration, reforestation, afforestation and agro-forestry, among others, have the potential to reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations. Nevertheless, pledges made under the Bonn challenge remain unconnected to the NDCs of each country and metrics are heterogeneous. Some national targets are measured in sequestrated tones of carbon, others in hectares of forest conversion. Emphasis is put on the various numbers of advantages to be gained from forest restoration, for example increased resilience to climate change, provision of water and biodiversity conservation.

“Make our communities safer, healthier and more prosperous.” – Bianca Jagger, IUCN Bonn Challenge Ambassador

An evening reception was accompanied by high-level keynote speakers, including the State Secretary of the German Ministry for Environment, the Deputy Minister of the Mahaweli Ministry for Development and Environment and the IUCN Bonn Challenge Ambassador. They reported on the journey of the Bonn challenge and proudly announced that the 2020 goal of restoring 150 Mio. hectares of forests was achieved already this year, according to promises given by participating nations.

As an important feature of the Bonn challenge ecological integrity, carbon sequestration and the needs of local communities are taken into account at the same time.

The post COP23: Bonn Challenge appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Organised by Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Coastal Association for Social Transformation Trust (COAST Trust), OXFAM International (OI)

Following the Paris agreements a taskforce is working on global recommendations on migration. People from low-income countries are more likely to be forced to move away, with small island developing states being most effected. 25.3 million People are displaced each year by disasters (average 2008-2016). Most events are weather related and are placed in Asia. Two experts for Bangladesh, which has a very densely populated coastal area, reported about the poverty increase in the respective regions. When focusing population, mainly small island states are effected, which shows how qualified Fiji is as host of the COP23, directly experiencing massive consequences of climate change.

Several problems occur with displacement. First, migration is often caused by a mixture of causes, such as climate change and traditional nomadic communities. Second, crossing boarders when migration is often linked to problems with sustaining people’s rights. A big, often neglected problem, are emotional fluctuations, as people are often placed in new areas with no infrastructure, e.g. schools or religious facilities, which makes relocation impossible. Furthermore, when returning to the home country people cannot return to their home city or village – displacement in the home country.

Three main problems with migration: Mixture of causes, the crossing of borders and emotional fluctuations.

An important aspect, which is missing in currently ongoing discussions, are the slowly ongoing disasters. This reality of having unavoidable mobility should be responded by minimizing displacement, upholding rights for people on the move, supporting long-term strategies for safe and dignified mitigation as well as providing finance and resources for people, which are forced to move.

Even with a immediate CO2 emission reductuion, Kiribati cannot be saved anymore.

In addition to sea level rise, small island states also face further climatic consequences. For example, the most urgent issue of Kiribati, a island republic in the central pacific, is the occurance of cyclones, which started hitting the island. So even if we manage to cut down CO2 emissions, the effects for the island cannot be prevented anymore. To say it in the words of the former president Kiribati, Anote Tong, people from small islands swimming in the cold water, and some are having a lifeboat to sit in, like it was at the titanic tragedy.

Shouldn’t we help to get the swimmers into the boat, rather than kicking them out to have more space for ourselves, the developed countries with nearly no coastal areas?

It was a very interesting event and discussion and showed up how interrelated the consequences of climate change are and how many factors have to be considered when tackling the problem of migration with dignity.

The post COP23: Displacement, human mobility and climate change appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

“Biodiversity is a global public good.”– Marie Haga

On the morning of the 9th of November there were strange plastic bags pinned on the wall of the Nordic Pavilion. They contained oranges, peanuts, bananas and, yes, chocolate. The bags represented nine time capsules, containing endangered food that will disappear in the foreseeable future due to climate change. It is a remarkable moment, realizing that we might not be able to eat chocolate in 15 years time, if we do not change our habits and make alternative choices. Other foods including honey, beef, shellfish, coffee and avocados will not be available in 2030, due to droughts, loss of biodiversity and the extinction of pollinators. So what can we do, what choices can we make, in order to save our food?

Every year we need to feed more people with less land and these intensive farming practices cause deforestation, soil exhaustion and water pollution. We are already experiencing a 70% – 80% decrease in insect lives due to our agricultural system and observe in general a massive biodiversity loss due to monocultures and land use change. There are 5500 varieties of crops that can be used for food, but only three of them make up 15% of our diet. An additional 75% of our calories consist of only another 12 crops and 5 animals.

But we are not only losing biodiversity, the variety within species vanishes as well. We used to have over 1000 different types of apples in Europe, today we consume only 6 of them. The US has lost 93% of their crops and animals since 1900. And China has only 10% of its rice variety from 1915. We are therefore losing genetic properties that might enable plants and animal to cope with future climate conditions, such as being drought resistant.

“We must save what we have because we don’t know what we need in the future. We only know we are losing options.” Marie Haga

But there is also hope: In Peru, for example, people are starting to find their way back to their own culture and food again and are very proud to see what a great variety of crops and fruits can be produced. In Lima the International Potato Center was established and people are now discovering what great variety of crops they have not been using for decades. Especially young people, who find job opportunities in gastronomy and try “new” old recipes, cause a booming export of Peruvian food. This valuing of products helps protecting biodiversity. And also Brazil, Sri Lanka, Kenia, Turkey and many more countries rediscover the value of the variety of fruits that have fallen completely out of their diets.

“If you go to a supermarket in Peru, you will find a least 20 varieties of potatoes, with different size, colour and taste.” Gycs Gordon

There is, however, always the need to increase the demand for different varieties of crops in order to make them accessible and establish them in the eating habits of people. Demand gives incentives for farmer to produce and sell various types of crops, so people can buy them for low prices on a daily basis. Therefore, there are many organizations, such as the Biodiversity for Food and Nutrition project, trying to use, for example, school feeding programs to raise the demand. In some areas mobile markets were established that can come to the areas where the more disadvantaged people are living and provide affordable, subsidised food.

“Change the image from poor people’s food to a gastronomic pleasure.” Ann Tutwiler

There is still a long way to go. We need to ask more from our food system than only calories. We need it to be sustainable, climate friendly, healthy and nutritious. We need it to support biodiversity and provide long term solutions. We must prepare to live in a warmer world. Maybe then there will be a change that we still might be able to eat chocolate and avocados in 2030.

This article is a resume of the discussion “Eat what’s worth saving” within the Food Day at the Nordic pavilion.  Participants where: Marie Haga, Executive Director, Crop Trust; Ann Tutwiler, Director general, Biodiversity international; Erin Biehl, Senior Program Coordinator, Food System Sustainability and Public Health Program, Johns Hopkins Center for a Liveable Future; Gycs Gordon, Director, Commercial Office of Peru, Hamburg; Sudhvir Singh, Director of Policy, EAT Foundation; The session was moderated by Dan Saladino, Journalist and Producer, BBC, Food Program.

The post COP23: Eat what’s worth saving appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

By: Katharina Funk

After weeks of planning, organising and waiting, the COP23 has finally begun! 19 GCE students have made their way from Bayreuth to Bonn for the first week of the climate conference and another 19 will come for the second week. They will participate in side events, negotiations, and – most importantly – will be also present at the GCE exhibition booth, to be found at the upper floor, above the cafeteria, number G.02.03., to inform about the scope and content of their Master’s program.

Beside detailed information about GCE and neatly arranged picture frames with QR codes is the heart of the booth: a giant game of Jenga, the bricks of which are labeled with the key components of the study. As the visual display suggests, the individual components of this study program build upon each other and everything is interconnected. “Mentoring” supports “International Students” and “Biodiversity” stands alongside “Interdisciplinary”.  Together, the bricks create a stable, well-built tower; a symbol of the Global Change Ecology Master’s Program.

Can you remove the “Elite Study Program”? Or maybe “Climate Impacts?”  How important is “Sustainable Development” in this construction? We welcome you to visit us at our booth and find out how much you can remove before everything collapses!

The post COP23: Ready to play a game of Jenga? appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

Organised by CARE International (Sven Harmeling), Center for International Environmental Law – CIEL (Sebastian Duyck), Women’s Environment and Development Organization – WEDO (Bridget Burns)

The Guaranteeing Rights & Gender Equality side event, organized by CARE International, invited a panel of four speakers to debate about human rights as well as gender implications and action strategies for including these priorities within the achievement of Paris goals.

The first to introduce her perspective on the issue was Noelene Nabuliron from Fiji. She saw potential in relying on increasing transparency and accountability to track progress towards equity. Communications, as an essential part for reporting on indices of transformation, were proposed by her.

“With all these strategies, the process would also have to placed in the wider context of a country’s culture and tradition, to understand deviations among nations.”
– Noelene Nabuliron from Fiji

She rounded off her speech by highlighting current problems, such as work of women that is not accounted for, the underlying systemic injustice, and the excessive and extractive production and consumption as major causes of inequality. She concluded with: “Nothing about us, without us.”

Her speech was followed by that of Sebastian Duych from the Center for International Environmental Law, who shifted the focus to the human rights legal perspective. The preamble of the Paris Agreement, he pointed out, can be seen as a very inspiring underlying message. Therefore, he pleaded to ensure that the spirit of the preamble should serve to influence all enforcement mechanisms when discussed during the negotiations and not just the technicalities.

Duych likewise urged states to inform about their status quo on equity at the community level. As a concluding remark, he stressed that only with an advancement of obligations toward including concrete measures to ensure human rights could real progress be expected.

After him, Bridget Burns from the Women’s Environment and Development Organization took the microphone and elaborated on the status of gender and the Paris Agreement. She proposed that gender should not only include women, but also all other sexes. With that she also stressed the recession of development in engagement of women in delegations and the disparity between policy and practice.

Five main claims were brought forward by Burns:
1. Gender responsive climate policy
2. More sex and gender disaggregated data and analysis
3. Meet goal of gender balance
4. 100% gender-responsive climate finance
5. Financing the gender action plan.

She underpinned her speech with the statement : “No gender equality on a dead planet.”

Lastly, “CARE International” closed off the session with a perspective on agriculture and women’s roles, which is not treated with adequate recognition at present. Land ownership and extreme events are striking the most vulnerable the hardest.

All in all, the side event was very helpful in filtering concrete actions and procedures out of the Paris Agreement. Besides the will to do something about inequalities in the world, all speakers demanded increasing action and a shift in focus on concrete plans. The “Gender Action Plan” can only be a first step in the right direction.

The post COP23: “Nothing about us, without us” – Guaranteeing rights & gender equality appeared first on Global Change Ecology.