The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity Seminar
TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity Seminar
Cleantech Forum Oct 15-16, 2009
Centre for Social Markets (CSM) PARTNER EVENTS
CSM is proud to support Cleantech Group LLC in the Cleantech Forum at Delhi
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 6 – 03 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 6 Report [03 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
A new week of negotiations begin. Hopefully more text will be consolidated by Monday. Some text to be consolidated by Tuesday.
First reading of newer text on Finance finishes. Mexico makes strong pitch for its Green Fund proposal, says ‘victims of today (us), may well be the culprits of tomorrow.
Consolidated text on Reduced Emissions from Decreased Deforestation (REDD) out. Many areas of convergence, Parties to revert next week.
Text on Mitigation Action by developing countries consolidated. Parties provide initial thoughts.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Parties (member states) finished their first reading of the consolidated negotiating text on Finance today. Many take this to indicate progress, particularly because Finance and the architecture for institutional arrangements to deliver it form the crux of any potential deal at Copenhagen. During the discussion, while several Annex I countries were in favour of existing financial institutions (e.g. IMF and World Bank and Global Environment Facility) continuing as the key touch points for disbursal of finance, Many non-Annex I Parties argued that speaking from experience, it was difficult for many to access these institutions and get financial aid from them.
Mexico’s Proposal for all countries to contribute to a ‘Green Fund’ in proportion to their respective capabilities and historical responsibilities met with some nods of agreement from several Annex I countries, while the G77/China, Pakistan, China and India were not in favour of the Mexican proposal, or any proposal that was not in conformity with the Convention.
Consolidated text on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD) was available today, and Parties went through the initial portions of the text, including principles and scope of the text. It was decided that Wednesday 7th October would be set aside for drafting of the text, based on the condensed text now made available. Parties agreed that there was much convergence on this issue, but that the aspects of REDD that referred to finance would have to be looked at once the overarching issues of overall finance (including figures) were looked into.
The chair indicated that negotiations on text could begin by Wednesday 7th October. Bolivia stressed the need to maintain environmental integrity, and recognize the interests of indigenous people. They noted that the current text concentrated too much on mechanisms that would, in effect, help Annex I countries meet their emission reduction needs. India raised the question of subjectivity in the text, such as ‘low carbon’, while Norway indicated that biodiversity principles and attention to biodiversity conservation needed to be improved.
Consolidated text on developing country mitigation action (1b (ii) of the Bali Action Plan) came out today. On the overarching pillar of mitigation, Australia had recently proposed a registry of mitigation actions (whatever they might be) for both developed and developing countries. These would include the nature of the targets (domestic/offset/ technology improvements/ adaptation actions, etc), and eventually help in assessing combined contributions for a long-term goal. In the discussions today, Australia proposed that this registry system be complimentary text (i.e. not as an option that can be negotiated out of the final deal). Japan indicated that new text misses out details for measuring and reporting on mitigation funded actions. Overall, the discussion was rather positive, and Parties will come back to the text on Thursday next.
FOCUS ON THE GOI
On Finance, India requested the chair to condense the text but to do so in conformity with the Convention and its guidelines. While this view is supported by most Parties from G77/China, many Annex I Parties, including the United States, Australia, Canada, EU and Japan are not averse to exploring new possibilities and mechanisms that can add value to the Copenhagen outcome. These include market mechanisms, as well as substantial reductions in emissions (as compared to a business as usual scenario) by large and key Non Annex I Countries.
On REDD, India’s interventions focused on the sources and basis for funding of REDD Mechanisms. Dr. Prodipto Ghosh highlighted the point that text such as ‘low carbon’ was ill-defined, and not in the Convention. That in the interest of keeping things simple, such principles must be kept out of the text. He also said that in the current text, there was a reference to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), and that this should be removed owing to such references posing contradictions to the Convention, but also because this could raise the issues of double counting.
On developing country mitigation actions, India raised issues of substance as well as arrangement. But indicated that this section – which is meant to address the requirements of developing nations did not do so. For example, that the reference to offset in the text should not be included here, as again, it raised the issue of double counting.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 5 – 02 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 5 Report [02 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Weekend Stock-taking session for Kyoto Protocol (KP) and Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) tracks.
Kyoto Protocol – stock-taking indicates good progress made on land use change, potential consequences. Targets remain the big question.
LCA – Technology transfer and capacity building makes good progress. First reading of text on Finance nearly done. Progress remains to be made in mitigation, adaptation sections.
Venezuela says in the past there use to be land grabs, now it is sky grabs.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Today marks the last day of the first week of a two-week session. Negotiators have a text before them that they must consolidate, but the point is not so much that they have to cut down the number of pages (>200), but rather that they must identify the key elements that must go into a Copenhagen deal.
As the Chair of the Kyoto Protocol session indicated during the stock-taking session, the reality of the crisis has NOT sunk in. That, while politicians made big promises at the UN Secretary General’s summit on climate change, those statements have not translated into anything concrete here.
Eleven negotiating days remain for the Copenhagen process to start. In this short time, negotiators have the unenviable task of seeking to avoid key numbers and commitments while negotiating text. While a number of Annex 1 countries have put down numbers for 2020 and the G8 have agreed to an 80% reduction by 2050, the level of ambition is criticized for not being enough. AOSIS critiqued the Annex 1 collective ambition of 11-18% below 1990 levels by 2020 and said this would lead to a temperature increase of “3ºC or worse.” The numbers do not go far enough to meet calls by them and other nations for cuts between 25-40% by 2020. Mitigation by Annex 1 countries and meaningful contributions by major developing economies is one sticking point. Another is the numbers on finance. These are all issues that will be subject to horse-trading. The fear is that decisions on these key issues will have to wait till the big guns arrive – the politicians – at Copenhagen. By then it may well be too late to reach agreement.
While this Copenhagen outcome will be new, the UN Convention is the main reference document on which the new deal will be built. It will also be guided by the Bali Action Plan, which provides the basis for a larger picture and a long-term vision that will give a perspective to the new outcome.
As for the Kyoto Protocol, it is the legal offspring of the Convention, valid till 2012. Over the course of the week, it has become apparent that some Annex I countries would prefer to phase out the Kyoto Protocol for the post 2012 deal. They would rather have a new deal that does away with the Kyoto Protocol but which keeps in line with the Convention and the Bali Action Plan.
Many developing countries, keen to retain the focus on Annex 1 countries, say that portions of the current text (proposed by Annex I), undermines the three key principles of the Convention – historical responsibility, common but differentiated responsibility and environmental integrity. They charge some Annex I countries with seeking to erode these principles of the Convention. Developing countries also say that the new text cannot just do away with the Kyoto Protocol, since that does away with any sort of legally binding compliance.
Given there are only eleven days (six here, five in Barcelona), time is running out. So the best way to move forward from here, is to focus on core issues and mechanisms. The chair of the AWG will soon convene informal meetings (tomorrow) that will aim to speed up the process for the following week.
The Climate Action Network urged the KP and LCA chairs to inject the political momentum from New York into the negotiations, and urged deviation from business as usual especially in these negotiations.
FOCUS ON THE GOI
In the mitigation section, India indicated that it would like to request the Secretariat to list currently available literature on whether the level of ambition put down by developed countries was adequate, and to assess the targets in comparison to the IPCC 2007 report. This was in response to the Australian proposal of schedules for future targets, on which all countries would put down their numbers.
In the stock-taking section of the LCA, Mr R.R. Rashmi – a key negotiator for India (on all issues technical), said they thought progress so far was fairly good. However, he said that in our efforts to reach a deal, we must not sprint to the end, but rather focus on some key areas:
- Developed countries had to give a deep emission reduction commitment, and reduction of 40-45% below 1990 levels
· Deliver on Finance without losing time
· And a global mechanisms that would deliver technology transfer at affordable cost would be a deal-clincher
He said if delegates could organize their work here to get these key issues on board, and inscribe it into the text before us, real progress could be made before Copenhagen.
The comments were appreciated by the Chair, owing to process suggestions that would lend clarity and de-cloud the rest of the week of negotiations.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 4 – 01 Oct 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 4 Report [01 Oct 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
Finance discussion plods ahead. Developed country parties want equal importance given to private and public sector funding. India raises important issue of triple counting emission reductions. Battle lines seem drawn.
US indicate preference for all countries to give their mitigation commitments for the long term. Australia puts forward proposal for listing and accounting for mitigation commitments (everybody). G77/China, India raise concerns about slipping away from responsibility of historical emitters, taking on new mitigation targets
Text on Capacity Building might be done rather soon.
US say global deal that does not take their domestic policies into concern will exclude possibility of US money. ‘To access our money’ you have to design a policy in that way – Pershing.
REDD moves smoothly. Parties agree to consolidate initial parts of text. Start discussing what is important for Copenhagen.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Time is ticking, but it is becoming increasingly clear, that if things do not move in the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) track, then things will not move in the Kyoto Protocol track either. The log-jam however, doesn’t end there. It spreads into cross-cutting areas of discussion like a domino. Finance continues to be a fraught and unyielding area in the negotiations.
Discussions on Finance under the LCA are stuck for a number of reasons. One is that private sector financing is favoured by some Annex 1 countries as a key aspect of the funding mix. While they ‘accept that public funding is essential’, and are not shying away from it, they ask for their proposal of private investments to be considered seriously. The role and potential contribution of market mechanisms in facilitating mitigation actions in developing countries is proving controversial.
Many non-Annex 1 countries favour straightforward public finance from Annex 1 countries as funding which bears less risk for them than being exposed to the vagaries of the market. Small developing nations in particular favour a greater share of public finance as market mechanisms under the Kyoto Protocol (such as the Clean Development Mechanism) have overwhelmingly benefitted the larger emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil.
Looking at a range of options, many Parties raised the pertinent point that future outcomes (whatever they might be), must not be restricted by the Convention. Even the LCA chair alluded to this, saying that we must no be like a ‘nightingale in a cage’.
Sure enough, neither the G77/China, India, Pakistan, Barbados, Colombia, China nor most others of the developing country block said they would not agree to any proposals that were outside the provisions of the Convention, and the Bali Action Plan. The G77/China alluded to the market process becoming like a self-service mechanism.
Practically speaking, new text outside of the provisions of these documents (that themselves were many many years in the making), means more negotiations, more negotiations and more negotiations. And sure enough, proposals will only be countered by counter proposals – which is how we now have a 208 page document that not even the most experienced and wily negotiator can make sense of.
In the second half of the discussions on Finance, the G77/China finally made mention of the AOSIS and LDC countries, and that they would require some special consideration. This is some reason for cheer, because it has been observed that although the AOSIS and LDC blocks are part of the G77/China, they get little special mention, as they rightfully should.
The United States continues to hold to its line that larger developing countries with the means to do so must also make contributions to mitigation. The Delegate from the US noted the difficulty that domestic processes presented (read, in the US case) which implied they could never become a part of the Kyoto Protocol. The US conclusion on finance was: if you want to access our resources, you have to design a policy taking our laws into account.
FOCUS ON GOI
In the mitigation section of the LCA, India opposed the proposals of the Annex I countries to keep the paragraph that indicated that private funding would be the major source of money for mitigation and adaptation actions in developing countries. They stuck to the common G77/China stand on following the Convention and the Bali Action Plan, saying that any proposals that did not incorporate those principles, could not be part of the new text. They indicated that proposals to diminish the role of public sector funding ignored the concept of responsibility.
In the Finance discussion of the LCA, India raised two points.
One of triple (or is it quadruple?) counting – that mitigation options considered outside of a legal framework could technically be counted by developed countries as meeting their responsibility, by developing countries as their Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), and by developed countries as meeting their financial requirements. Plus they could potentially get Certified Emission Reductions (CER) for it.
They also argued that if the private sector was to be the major source of funding for mitigation and adaptation action that this would come under bilateral partnerships, that would not count as supported mitigation actions (as is intended to be the case).
More By Malini Mehra
More by Malini Mehra – (Climate Change only)
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 3 – 30 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 3 Report [30 Sep 2009]
HEADLINE NEWS
G77/China Chair in press conference says rich countries want to ditch Kyoto Protocol.
NZ becomes bakra of meeting on Kyoto Protocol. Responds to its recent decision to further kill level of ambition. Is asked to defend its position by South Africa. Says from a developed country perspective, NZ is almost like a developing country.
Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Micronesia make impassioned statements at Kyoto Protocol targets discussion. Says Annex I countries are forgetting developed country populations, historical responsibility, or that there is a real climate crisis while defending their poor level of ambition.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
Negotiations on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) continued today, with contact groups beginning the process of consolidating text on developed and developing country mitigation actions (each under separate paragraphs of the Bali Action Plan). Recall that mitigation is a key process to actually reducing emission reductions, and that at some time in the future, developing countries (as they develop) also need to set some targets. For now, the silence is valid and allowed, although pressure for some major developing countries to come out and make commitments is building.
While there is a clear mandate in the Bali Action Plan for developing country emission trajectories to reduce ‘significantly’ from Business As Usual (BAU) paths, the differences of opinion here, are focused around the actual targets, and the need for developing country actions to be Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV).
G77/China and several developing countries indicated that all actions on mitigation that they would take up by themselves (unilaterally and therefore not financed from Annex I countries) would:
– not be subjected to verification
– be voluntary
– and bottom-up (decided domestically)
This is something they have been saying right from the start. Nevertheless, with 65 days to Copenhagen and the pressure for a deal (post 2012 deal) building, developing country silence on any sort of long-term targets seems to be exasperating developed country partners. Many Annex I countries are unable to come to grips with political posturing by India and China or even Indonesia recently, with none of these actually translating into ‘commitments’.
As for the LCA discussion on the nature of developed country mitigation targets in the future, today’s session was focused on the issue of ‘comparability’ – or how emission reductions can be measured one against the other. The United States is keen that comparing targets is done through a domestic process that is then peer reviewed. G77/China and India argued for top-down setting of targets that are objectively reviewed by a legal international process.
Technocratic decisions aside, Parties are still in the process of putting logical bits of currently incoherent text together, so that they can then begin the process of negotiation. As indicated yesterday, real negotiations are still likely to begin only by Monday.
Coming to the other track of the negotiations – the Kyoto Protocol, decisions on Annex I mitigation targets below 1990 levels are still to be decided. Parties (Annex I) still have to agree on the base year, the commitment period, and the proportion of offsets that will come from domestic cuts.
However, it is rather clear that targets are a hugely political decision, and that negotiators here may not have the mandate to set such targets. In effect, the three hour session on Kyoto targets managed to get rather heated, confused and an unhappy exercise for most Parties.
The EU began with its progress report, which included a display of how to use hot air as credits, and how it was possible to cash in on all the loopholes in the Kyoto Process while claiming emission reductions. While their intentions may have been noble, and while they are the only developed country block showing some environmental integrity, they managed along with Japan, to ask for a joint session between the KP and the LCA – tracks meant to be addressed separately since 2007. They added meat to their argument by saying that the LCA and the Land-Use and Land-Use Change (LULUCF) discussions had not progressed so far, and that this meant there was little hope for the targets discussion here at the KP to progress.
The invisible elephant in the KP room was the US, which was mentioned in the discussions despite its not being a member of the Kyoto Protocol. The EU asked for developing countries to make their long-term targets clear so that they (Annex I) would be able to meet their Kyoto Targets. Australia said encouraging political statements made by several developing countries had not yet translated into any action here, in the negotiations, and was visibly exasperated by this. The KP session was not perhaps the most appropriate forum to bring all these issues up – it could easily have been discussed at the LCA sessions.
Venezuela began the rebuff on these suggestions to mix the tracks, by saying ‘no-one held a gun to their head to sign the Kyoto’, but ‘now they want to throw the responsibility on developing countries’. South Africa, India, China, Micronesia and Pakistan chimed in agreement on no need to mix tracks. China made an impassioned statement about whether they ‘recognised their responsibility’, and that they were talking here of 1/4th of the world’s population causing here quarters of the emissions, and vice versa.
What could this complete waste of three hours imply? Simply that there was an absence of a clear political mandate from Annex I countries, and that this meant a stalemate here. As the South African delegate clearly said, ‘it’s a chicken and an egg story’, and nothing will move until something moves, but if no one wants anything to move then nothing will move.
Focus on the GOI
At the LCA, India mostly clarified its position on what it and the G77/China understood by the paragraphs on NAMAs for developing countries. On developed country mitigation requirements, negotiators said there was a need for all comparability of efforts to be transparent and done through an objective process. They also indicated that they wanted the benchmark for future ambition and targets to come from the architecture (rules and processes) of the Kyoto Protocol.
On the KP targets track, when the EU and Australia suggested the idea of a joint session for the two tracks, India said ‘was it a dream that we met in Bali where we decided to keep the KP and the LCA tracks separate?’ India argued that what developing countries said – referencing to Australia’s exasperation on political movement but lack of translation into negotiation process – was not relevant here. They charged that Annex I countries were comparing apples, oranges and all kinds of Annex I fruits, and finding ways of measuring their emission cuts in several different ways. But that they were not addressing their targets in the context of science, rationality, and responsibility.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 2 – 29 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 2 Report [29 Sep 2009]
WISE WORDS FROM THE NEGOTIATORS
“Let us discuss FOOD and what it looks like.
But do we get to eat it?
… well, that’s another matter altogether!”
HEADLINE NEWS
Line-by-line negotiations only look likely by Monday next. ‘Accelerator’ meetings may add some momentum.
United States brings up issues of mitigation commitments. Almost threatens to stall negotiations if its demands are not met
Negotiations on Technology Transfer move smoothly. Some reason for cheer. Co-chairs given unanimous mandate to consolidate all of the new text on the section by Thursday.
Adaptation, Shared vision for Long-term Cooperative Action text hits same old roadblocks. Developed countries oppose developing country preferences and vice versa.
Finance negotiations start on text from the word go, differences in Parties’ approach remains. Similar status quo on differences in Shared Vision for Long-term Cooperative Action.
New Zealand may backtrack on already miniscule targets. Sets more conditions for acceptance.
KEY ISSUES OF THE DAY
For some time now, there have been large differences between key Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries regarding mitigation issues – specifically, how each group should address emission reductions and mitigation action. These specific mitigation discussions have failed to progress for some time now, but in the run-up to Copenhagen, it is crucial that these matters be resolved as they form a key part of the negotiations.
Developing countries want measurable reportable and verifiable (MRVs) commitments for themselves to be discussed as a separate issue from that of developed country MRVs. The United States wanted a discussion on mitigation elements common to all Parties, and for this issue to be discussed under a separate sub-group.
Matters came to a head yesterday when the US said it would not move forward on the rest of the negotiations on mitigation unless this issue was settled, and their demands met.
Australia and Norway supported the US proposal, while India led the opposition supported by China and the G77+China. While such spats threaten to stall discussions and get reported as such, they are in some ways a good sign that negotiations are indeed progressing. Unless diplomats thrash out their differences (even if they are through veiled comments), there will be little progress. No one wishes for a treaty or a deal on which everyone agrees meekly, and in which no one strives to achieve what is in the best interests of all.
For some good news, decent progress has been made on the section on Enhanced Action on Development and Transfer of Technology, with parties asking the co-chair to go ahead and consolidate the entire text. Blocks of text will be circulated to Parties as and when they get ready, and the entire text on technology will be ready by Thursday. The G77 and China however, did manage to dampen the spirit of the negotiations, by saying that although all the text could be consolidated, they may or may not find it acceptable.
Other tepid news included slow movement on discussions of Finance, and on what portions of the text Parties would agree to. Here again, developing countries insisted that details of Finance must be out, and that paying for ‘services’ in some sense, must not be considered as charity.
For some time now, the only region to verbally commit some money to the process and through the Convention, has been the European Union (EU). However, many experts suggest the money proposed by the EU is too low. The EU today expressed its belief that much money would come through external mechanisms such as carbon markets and private sector investments rather than government transfers. G77 and China, India and the Co-Chair, pointed out that neither the EU nor any Annex I countries should mix issues, nor confuse their obligations with external or optional mechanisms.
Not to make too fine a point of it, it seems rather clear that while developed countries are less and less keen to talk about ‘differentiated’ responsibilities, the developing countries refuse to talk about ‘common’ responsibilities. Developed countries are also firm on wanting major developing countries on board with legally binding mitigation targets – something that countries such as China are opposing in a big way.
Polemics aside, negotiators are keen to make progress on shortening and clearing out the text. Given the short span of time left to thrash out issues (only 13 negotiating days), they are also keen to focus on the key and ‘bigger picture’ issues, and leave the nitty gritty bits of relatively unimportant text for a post-Copenhagen discussion. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that hard negotiations will only be able to hit the ground by Monday, since much discussion on process, the ‘how’, and on consolidating text is currently underway.
Focus on the GOI
At the mitigation discussion, India questioned MRV and highlighted the need to discuss the issue of mitigation separately for Annex I and Non Annex I countries. This grew into the much talked about spat between the developing countries and US negotiators, with India being a special focal point. The US delegate Jonathan Pershing, breaking protocol, made a direct reference to India’s environment minister’s recent statement, but going further, suggested that the US would be unwilling to continue discussions on the matter unless they got consent for a formal contact group.
Nevertheless, on more substantive issues, India did reiterate environment minister Jairam Ramesh’s statements that the scope and frequency of the National Communications (NATCOMs) would be expanded to each year, as opposed to every six years until now. However, India reiterated its position that mitigation actions not supported by developed country action would not be subject to verification.
On Finance, India highlighted the need for a financial mechanism under the Convention, since there was only an interim arrangement through the GEF at the moment.
India’s position is unlikely to have changed as regards MRVs and legally binding targets. This is similar to what the Chinese may have in mind at the multilateral process, regardless of bilaterals and their own unilateral mitigation actions.
CSM @ Bangkok – Day 1 – 28 Sep 09
Centre for Social Markets at the UNFCCC Bangkok – Day 1 Report [28 Sep 2009]
“The political winds are behind you
The negotiating sails are set.
With all my heart I urge you to pull up the anchor and make full sail before we lose the tide
and are left stranded on the beach, exposed to the coming storms”
– Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, Bangkok 2009
The negotiating sails are set.
With all my heart I urge you to pull up the anchor and make full sail before we lose the tide
and are left stranded on the beach, exposed to the coming storms”
– Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary, UNFCCC, Bangkok 2009
Headline News
UN climate negotiations resume in Bangkok 28 September 2009. Progress here is crucial for a successful deal in Copenhagen.
Thai PM Abhisit Vejjajiva and Danish Minister Connie Hedegaard open talks. Thai PM says “our children and grandchildren will never forgive us unless action is taken”.
Negotiators look forward to Bangkok discussions being fruitful. Understand that progress here is crucial for Copenhagen. All groups and countries say they are willing and ready to engage constructively in discussions.
New climate leadership from Japan welcomed. Many countries commend action to reduce GHG emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
The week gone by adds critical momentum
Five weeks after the Bonn3 round of negotiations, climate talks resumed in Bangkok. Between August and now, there has been much political activity directed towards building momentum. Among the numerous high-level meetings, the UN climate summit, hosted by UN Secretary General and attended by over 100 world leaders was the most successful in bringing out the political will necessary to reach a successful deal in Copenhagen this December. Here leaders expressed their determination to seal a comprehensive, fair and effective deal to avoid dangerous climate change. Other developments that brought hope were Japan’s commitment to reduce its emissions to 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and China and India agreeing to implicit or ‘soft’ targets on mitigation. However, an AOSIS summit held just before the UN climate summit provided a stark reminder of the survival of island and vulnerable countries being in question given the rapid rate of climate change.
Key issues of the day
As Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, said at the opening of the Bangkok climate talks, ‘time is not just pressing, it has almost run out’. Barely 16 days of negotiating time remain, within which negotiators are imposed with the onerous task of making 280 pages of text clearer, shorter and more coherent. Danish campaigner, Tove Ryding, said that with just three months to a deal, we are still ‘drowning in text’.
Clearly the task of negotiators is not just complicated, it is crucial to a successful outcome. Political will aside, if these two weeks at Bangkok yield a poor harvest, it could mean that a delay in a climate deal could be inevitable.
It might be a optimistic to hope that the pace of negotiation progress will match the increasing pace of action at the highest levels. However, if negotiators have been given high level support from capitols, this may well be possible.
However, key caveats to the success of negotiations include the need to focus on the substance of the text rather than process and a perspective of the larger deal.
Key issues to address over the next two weeks include the ‘bigger picture’:
– On Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA), comprehensive and shorter text, details on key issues – finance, technology transfer, adaptation finance, developed and developing country mitigation action
– On the Kyoto Protocol, firming up targets for developed country emission reductions and rules for forest mechanisms (REDD) and land use (LULUCF)
– On the overall negotiations, commitments to action, follow through of commitments, building trust and transparency in processes
Unlike the Bonn sessions, where the focus was on process rather than substance, negotiations here at Bangkok need to get down to the brass tacks as soon as possible.
Bangkok began on a fairly high note, with negotiators from all groups (G77+China, LDCs, AOSIS, Umbrella, Environmental Integrity, EU and the African group) indicating that they were keen to progress discussions and ready to engage constructively. One measure of positive progress over these two weeks will come from solid output on substance. If by Monday next we see no work on substance, we may not ‘make full sail before we lose the tide’ in the words of Yvo de Boer. In addition, the survival of the Kyoto Protocol and all negotiations finished by Barcelona would indicate real progress.
While India and China’s efforts to engage in the process as responsible Asian giants have not gone unnoticed, what has not yet been said by others is worrisome. Action from the United States is still awaited and their level of ambition is certainly wanting. The EU is still silent on financing, and the Australian proposal submitted to the Greenland Dialogue mainly provides fresh impetus to strengthen carbon markets but specifies little else. Many individual developed countries are still silent on targets, a base year and even commitment periods (5 or 8 years). It is now openly suggested that the numbers game will go on till the last night at Copenhagen in December.
The AOSIS and Africa Group emphasized what was possibly a pressure point for one and all – that a missed opportunity at a deal would undermine the integrity of the Convention itself.
Focus on the GOI
India backed the G77 and China in its statements, saying that no targets for emission reductions by Barcelona will mean that the Copenhagen outcome will be a failure, and pointed out an important point that the negotiation text still does not include any targets.
While other representatives alluded to the mandate by their leaders at key political forums this September, India was silent on comments made by Jairam Ramesh at New York and Pittsburgh. Specifically on positive moves made by the environment minister on India wanting to be a ‘deal maker’and measures such as releasing India’s National Communications to the UNFCCC every year instead of six, and a proposal for a National Climate Change Mitigation Authority mentioned by the Prime Minister earlier this month. Nor was there any effort by India’s negotiators at Bangkok to re-package and sell India’s actions as the Minister for Environment and Forests has been doing successfully internationally.
India Climate Watch – September 2009
INDIA CLIMATE WATCH – SEPTEMBER 2009 (Issue 6)
INSIDE THIS ISSUE
From the Editor’s desk
India shifts on climate
UN Climate Summit
Major Economies Forum
G20 – Pittsburgh
AOSIS Summit
Kathmandu to Copenhagen
Foreign Visits to India
South Asian Youth Climate Forum
MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports
Editor:
Malini Mehra
Research & Reporting
Malini Mehra, Kaavya Nag, Pranav Sinha
From the Editor’s Desk
With the start of the UN General Assembly in New York this month being heralded by the UN Climate Summit at Secretary-General BAN Ki-Moon’s instigation, the UN system is now in full campaign mode on climate change. In an unprecedented move, the UN has adopted a ‘Seal the Deal’ campaign emphasizing the need to finalise a global deal on climate change at the UNFCCC talks in Copenhagen this December. After years of diplomatic neutrality, the UN has become an NGO and is campaigning hard on climate change. Across the UN system, bodies ranging from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) to UNICEF, the UN’s children fund, have taken on the ‘Seal the Deal’ logo and all major UN documents are being badged with the logo to drive home the message that 2009 must be the year of action on climate change.
The message has been taken on institutionally and has been driven forth determinedly by the Secretary-General. But have the UN’s 192 member states taken it on board? If the response to the BAN Ki-Moon’s call for head of state attendance at the UN Climate Summit was any indication, then there is a slow gathering of political interest. 150 heads of state responded to his call, making it the largest gathering of world leaders on climate change in history. An encouraging sign. But had the location been Washington DC instead of New York, there might have been more impact. It is the 100 Senators seated in the US Capitol who need to see that the world is moving on climate change. It is time they did too.
India shifts on climate
On 11 September 2009, at a business conference in Delhi, in the presence of the visiting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, said it was time for India to stand up and be counted. He said India would “unilaterally and voluntarily” take “bold new responsibilities” to take targeted CO2 emissions cuts, something it has “evaded doing in the past”. Gone was the taboo of mitigation. The Minister ran through a number of current and planned measures under the Government’s National Action Plan on Climate Change that could reduce emissions by promoting a shift to renewable energy and energy efficiency. Measures included generating power from clean coal technology; 15-20% of total energy generation from renewable energy (excluding hydro); new efficiency requirements for appliances by 2010; fuel efficiency norms by 2012; reducing emissions from agriculture; and ensuring compliance of public buildings with energy conservation laws by 2012.
All of these were designed to show that India was moving and recognised the importance of reducing emissions as it grew its economy in the years to come to provide development for its people. Ramesh revealed that the government was considering laws on mitigation modelled on the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, domestic legislation that had set a defined band for government deficits. He was apparently reviewing draft legislation which would set broad ‘indicative’ targets, not mandatory targets, for the five most polluting sectors of the Indian economy. This would, he said, amount to India having “a legislative agenda for mitigation which will bring credibility to the actions via domestic political consensus.” The emissions would be quantified and monitored domestically with the resultant figures shared with the rest of the world.
Ramesh’s words were a stunning reversal of government policy and were part of a pattern of growing reforms within his Ministry. In his first 100 days in office, Ramesh has gone on the front foot with a series of initiatives to improve communication. The GoI’s submissions to the UNFCCC climate negotiations have been bundled into one omnibus document. His ministry has released a report on the role of India’s forests in carbon sequestration – part of the REDD+ offensive. The results of five modeling studies on India’s GHG emissions have been published with a call for the report to spark discussion and debate. Good communication moves and a shift away from the previous closed culture of the ministry.
It is in this context of making good on his promise to be the new broom that sweeps clean that his September 11th remarks should be seen. These were not off the cuff comments. This was a deliberate statement made in presence of the Prime Minister of the host country of this year’s Climate Summit. The message was clear India was in the game and ready to play. It was time to shake off India’s reputation as being negative, defensive and obstructionist in the negotiations. In Ramesh’s words “we are proactive, constructive, we want a fair and equitable agreement in Copenhagen”.
Abridged from ‘Jairam finds his voice – India shifts on climate policy’.
UN Climate Summit
On 22nd September, the UN launched an unofficial week of climate activities in New York. The day prior – 21 September – had seen the first Global Day of Action on climate change organized by the TckTckTck coalition, 350.org and other activist groups. With a coordinated global ringing of alarm clocks citizens around the world issued a ‘Global Wake-up Call’ to world leaders to take action on climate change.
The UN’s Climate Summit marked the largest ever gathering of heads of state on climate change. The Secretary-General, BAN Ki-Moon, had called the Summit as an unprecedented moment to raise political will ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit in December. According to the UN, 150 countries participated in the Summit. In his Chairman’s Summary at the close of the day, BAN Ki-Moon said: “Today marked the moment when the political momentum has shifted in favour of sealing a fair, effective and ambitious global climate deal in Copenhagen.” He highlighted five key issues in the climate negotiations that constituted areas of convergence among leaders present at the UN Summit: “A package on adaptation; ambitious mid-term mitigation targets by industrialized countries; supported actions by developing countries to slow the growth of their emissions; scaled-up financing and technology support to unlock investment and catalyze green growth; and equitable governance that address the needs of developing countries.”
The day had opened with a high-level line-up of heads of states and celebrities. The UN Secretary General was joined by the presidents of the USA, China, France, the Maldives and Costa Rica, along with the prime ministers of Japan, Rwanda and Sweden. Two Indians joined them on the opening panel, Dr RK Pachauri, head of the IPCC and 13-year old schoolgirl Yugratna Srivastava from Lucknow, representing global youth.
Obama’s UN damp squib
One man’s speech was perhaps more eagerly awaited than any other. President Barack Obama made his debut speech at the United Nations at the Climate Summit. However, despite high expectations, the President Obama cut a disappointing figure. Facing one hundred heads of state, he was unable to commit to leadership on something that BAN Ki-Moon called the “pre-eminent geo-political and economic issue of the 21st Century.” The President’s speech was aspirational but vague. There were no targets and no numbers – either on emissions cuts or climate finance. This time the soaring rhetoric was not matched by substance.
Others did much better. Japan’s new premier, Yukio Hatayomo, catapulted his country onto the climate A-list with promised emissions cuts of 25% by 2020 – up 17% from previous figures – and substantial new and additional finance to help poor countries fight climate change. President Nasheed of the Maldives, a nation on the frontlines of climate extinction, committed to make his country carbon neutral within a decade. China’s President Hu Jintao, stopped short of the grand announcement that had been anticipated by many, but spoke of the momentous investments the country was making into resource conservation and energy efficiency. China is now the largest producer of renewable energy in the world and the President promised to cut CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by a “notable margin” by 2020 at 2005 levels
India at the UN Summit
With the exception of the visible presence of Dr Pachuari and Yugratna Srivastava at the opening of the UN Climate Summit, India’s presence was low-key to virtually invisible. The country was not represented at head of government or head of state level, instead the Indian Delegation was led by Foreign Secretary, S M Krishna, accompanied by MoEF Minister Jairam Ramesh. India was not noted as one of the participants in the two parallel sets of Roundtables held during the Summit for participating governments. Indian business was, however, represented in the private sector session of the day and both Dr JJ Irani, Chairman of Tata Sons, and Pramod Chaudhari, CEO of Praj Industries, engaged actively in addressing the role of business on climate change.
Major Economies Forum
The Major Economies Forum is a Bush-administration legacy that has been continued by the Obama Administration. President Obama announced the launch – or rather resumption – of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate on March 28, 2009. According to the US, the Forum is “intended to facilitate a candid dialogue among major developed and developing economies, help generate the political leadership necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the December UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”
The 17 major economies participating in the Major Economies Forum are: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Collectively they account for upto 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Denmark, in its capacity as the President of the December 2009 Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations have also been invited to participate in this dialogue.
The US was host to the latest monthly round of MEF meetings on September 17-18, 2009. Todd Sterns, Special Envoy for Climate Change headed the US participation at the MEF in Washington DC and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs Michael Froman served as chair. The Indian delegation was led by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran, and this was the first meeting since the MEF at leaders level took place on July 9, 2009 in L’Aquila, Italy.
As media participation is restricted and little information on the proceedings is made public, the actual deliberations remain secret and speculation tends to pass for informed comment. What is apparent is that the MEF has not as yet developed as an external Forum outside of the UNFCCC’s strictures which can be used by participant countries to push for greater progress than possible within the highly-politicized UNFCCC. The next MEF meeting is to be hosted by the British and may see greater transparency as to both the substance of the discussions and the outcome of the proceedings.
G20 – Pittsburgh
As part of two weeks of international climate change events, the US was host to the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh, PA, on 24-25 September 2009. The Pitsburgh Summit was themed around green jobs and green recovery and suitably held at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center, the world’s first and largest green convention center. At the G20, the world’s financial representatives and leaders came together to discuss economic policies and address the global financial crisis. Although climate change was on the agenda, very little progress was made. While advance was expected to be made on the thorny issue of climate finance, countries such as China declined to engage in such discussions outside of the UNFCCC. While the US sought to use the Summit to make progress in addressing fossil fuel subsidies, India was far more interested in addressing the global financial crisis.
The eventual Communique issued out of the G20 at Pittsburgh consisted of 7- paragraphs.The relevant sections of the paragraphs on energy and climate change were as follows:
On fossil fuel subsidies, the key sections are as follows:
“We commit to rationalize and phase out over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies that encourage wasteful consumption. As we do that, we recognize the importance of providing those in need with essential energy services, including through the use of targeted cash transfers and other appropriate mechanisms. This reform will not apply to our support for clean energy, renewables and technologies that dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We will have our Energy and Finance Ministers, based of their national circumstances, develop implementation strategies and timeframes, and report back to Leaders at the next Summit. We ask the international financial institutions to offer support to countries in this process. We call on all nations to adopt policies that will phase out such subsidies worldwide.”
“We request relevant institutions, such as the IEA, OPEC, OECD and World Bank, provide an analysis of the scoope of energy subsidies and suggestions for the implementation of this initiative and report back at the next summit.”
The key sections on climate finance, read:
“As to financing we think the following principles should be explored as a resource to the UNFCCC negotiations:
- Green growth is indispensible to sustainable growth.
- Effective and efficient finance to address climate change must be integrated with development planning, policies, and investments.
- Public and private financial resources to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries need to be scaled up urgently and substantially, with public resources utilizing a variety of delivery channels and drawing upon the expertise of existing institutions.
- Carbon markets need to be improved, in terms of their development, oversight, and expansion.
- It is important to consider means to leverage private sector investment.
We welcome the work of the Finance Ministers and direct them to report back at their next meeting with a range of possible options for climate change financing to be provided as a resource to be considered at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen.”
Given the significance of a good deal on climate finance to the possibility of a good deal at Copenhagen, these conclusions now raise the stakes for the remaining high-level finance minister meetings that take place before the UNFCCC meeting in December. Namely the EU finance ministers meeting in October and the next G20 Finance Ministers meeting in November.
AOSIS Summit – 1.5 to stay alive
Bahamas. Maldives. Mauritius. Cyprus. Seychelles. Papua New Guinea. No longer are the names of these countries associated with exotic locations, white sands and tourist destinations. They are now associated with island survival in the face of climate change. States such as the Maldives, the Bahamas and Kiribati are so low-lying that the adverse effects of climate change will threaten their very existence. Sea level rise by even 1 meter above current levels will inundate costal zones, make drinking water saline, impact agriculture and fishing, and affect infrastructure now and in the future.
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is a coalition of 43 small and low-lying coastal countries that have the most to lose from global climate change and have come together to assert their interests. AOSIS nations are pushing for the latest science to be incorporated into global policies to prevent dangerous climate change. This includes stronger mitigation commitments and a greater sense of urgency.
AOSIS held an agenda-setting Summit on 21st September in New York, one day ahead of the UN Secretary General’s Climate Summit. At their Summit, AOSIS heads of state signed a joint declaration urging the world to act quickly and substantially on climate change, and to limit temperature increases “well below” 1.5 º C.
Tillman Thomas, Prime Minister of the Grenada said “We see climate change as a threat to our survival… and failure by rich countries to act would be tantamount to a kind of benign genocide”.
The AOSIS summit was a key opportunity to highlight the vulnerability of small island developing states (SIDS), but also to express the high level of disappointment within AOSIS member states at the “apparent lack of ambition” within the negotiation process. They called upon the international community to take “urgent, ambitious and decisive action” that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and protect vulnerable countries, communities, cultures and ecosystems from the impacts of climate change.
AOSIS along with the group of Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are now the two major negotiating blocks at the UNFCCC calling for environmental integrity, and asking for the atmosphere to be placed before markets and money on the list of things ‘to prioritise’ at climate negotiations.
Despite being among those least responsible for the climate crisis, AOSIS and LDC states have quickly become the moral voice of the negotiations, pushing for the highest level of ambition, the largest emission cuts, and the smallest degree of temperature rise.
Despite the grave tone of the Declaration, Vice-Chair of the AOSIS summit, President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives addressed the UN climate summit the following day and called on world leaders to seize the opportunity, and focus on what countries can do. He asked for “island survival” to become the benchmark for climate change mitigation success. Arguing that negotiations have, until now, revolved around a “prohibitive list”, he pushed for fresh thinking and positive lists that would change the nature of negotiations and herald real change.
Kathmandu to Copenhagen: Addressing climate risk
The Government of Nepal hosted a South Asian regional climate change conference, “From Kathmandu to Copenhagen: A Vision for Addressing Climate Change Risks and Opportunities in the Himalaya Region” on August 31 – September 1, 2009 in Kathmandu, Nepal. This was part of a Joint Initiative of the Government of Nepal, Department for International Development (DFID), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA), and the World Bank.
The focus of the regional conference was the South Asia Himalayas which comprise the world’s highest mountains, store the largest body of ice outside of polar region and are the source of some of the world’s greatest rivers, fed by the monsoon. These rivers supply the world’s most densely populated flood plains, settled by over 700 million people in the region. Since the region shares geological formations such as, the Himalayas and river basins, natural hazards frequently transcend national boundaries. Over 50 percent of South Asians – more than 750 million people – have been affected by natural disasters in the last two decades. With climate change, the frequency and incidence of such natural disasters is projected to increase.
The conference was attended by ministers, parliamentarians, government officials from the seven regional nations, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Kyrgyz Republic. Other participants included NGOs, academic bodies, development partners and media.
The conference sought to provide a forum for countries in the Himalayan region to share knowledge and experience about common risks that climate change brings, and the immense development opportunities that could be fostered. There was also an attempt to develop a common message to the global community on regional climate change challenges. The conference also stressed the need to translate the principles of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ and historical responsibility of the developed countries as envisaged in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) into operational practice. The conference noted that the world had spent more on corporate/financial bailouts than on promoting sustainability and addressing climate change.
The conference resulted in the following key outcomes:
All attending nations agreed a Vision Document for addressing climate risks. The document states: South Asia including Hindu Kush-Himalayan (HKH) region is a climate change hot spot and highly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change especially water resources. The South Asian countries must therefore come together to fill the knowledge gaps through collaborative actions and shared research aimed at enhancing capacity building to enhance their climate change responses through SAARC and other institutions as agreed. The document also states that enhanced climate change responses require additional financial and technical resources which should come from Annex 1 Parties to the UNFCCC and Development and transfer of clean technologies should not be constrained by the high upfront costs of intellectual property rights. It further asks for recognition and payment for credits from the forestry sector must include a comprehensive approach to sustainable management and conservation of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
In addition, fourteen donor agencies signed an agreement (Compact on Climate Change in Nepal) to support the Government of Nepal in its fight against climate change. The compact outlines 7 principles of participation between the Government of Nepal, Ministry of Environment and development partners on ways to address climate change challenges. The agreement will support the government of Nepal to implement a series of actions designed to (a) identify and assess climate risks, particularly to the most vulnerable people and sectors, (b) elaborate, test and implement adaptive responses, and (c) establish the basis for a climate resilient economy.
It was also announced that the Global Ministerial Conference of the mountain countries will be held in Kyrgyz Republic in 2010 to discuss on issues of cooperation in the post-Copenhagen period.
Foreign Visits – Danish and British dignitaries visit India
Danish premier visit Delhi for climate talks
Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen visited New Delhi from September 10-12, 2009 in preparation for the UN climate conference in Copenhagen later this year.
Premier Rasmussen held talks with his counterpart, Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, along with Minister for External Affairs S. M. Krishna and Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh. During the meeting, India and Denmark signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on mitigation of energy emissions and transfer of green technology. Denmark is a world leader in solar, wind and other renewable energy sources and a pioneer in promoting green technologies
Mr. Rasmussen also met Dr. RK Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to discuss the Road to Copenhagen. He stated that India’s views are extremely important both because of India’s climate change challenge, but also because India is home to 17 percent of the Earth’s population.
Finally, recognizing important role of industry in tackling the climate challenge the Danish premier hosted a business seminar on the opportunities for India in a ‘Green Economy’ in cooperation with the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII). Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh and Shell India Chairman V.S. Mehta joined Mr. Rasmussen on the panel.
Mr. Rasmussen welcomed India’s stand on climate change but hoped that all countries would come to an agreement by the year-end. He told delegates at the CII event:
“The Indian approach is very ambitious. It goes hand in hand with fighting poverty. We cannot ask you in developing countries to take on the responsibilities. You have your obligations.”
UK Ministers – Edward Miliband and Douglas Alexander visit India & Bangladesh
British Minister for Energy and Climate Change, Edward Miliband, and the Minister for International Development, Douglas Alexander, came on a two-day joint ministerial visit to Bangladesh and India to get support for a climate deal that is fair to the region’s economy and its people.
Highlights of the Bangladesh trip included:
- The Ministers attended the launch of the British Council’s International Climate Change Champions Project
- The Ministers called on H.E. Sheikh Hasina, Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the members of the cabinet
- The Ministers visited an island in Sirajganj and met some of the people most directly affected by severe storms and extreme weather and saw how they are adapting their homes and livelihoods to live with climate change.
In India, the two young Ministers visited Kolkata and Delhi. Highlights of the Kolkata (India) trip included:
- The Ministers visited a slum improvement project supported by Department for International Development
- They also explored India’s first solar housing complex in Kolkata .
- Highlights of the Delhi (India) trip included:
- In Delhi, the Ministers held talks with their Indian counterparts on a wide range of issues on climate change and development
- They met Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission; Rahul Gandhi, MP; Jairam Ramesh, Minister of Environment and Forests; and Shyam Saran, PM’s Envoy on Climate Change among others.
- They also took a Metro ride to learn more about Delhi’s green transport initiatives along with youth representatives of IYCN.
- Ministers also gave a speech and Q&A session at British Council. Later, Mr Alexander also launched a partnership with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and announced funding of up to £10 million to support the work of TERI over the next five years which will enable TERI to improve knowledge, policy analysis and development practice across a broad range of issues critical to growth, poverty reduction and environmental sustainability in India.
- The ministerial visit was an opportunity to underscore three points strongly emphasized by both Miliband and Alexander during the trip.
- Firstly, the UK recognises developed countries’ historic responsibility for climate change. The UK has set out plans to reduce its emissions by one third by 2020 compared to 1990 and Climate Change Act puts the stringent targets in legislation.
Secondly, developed countries must meet their commitment to provide finance and technology to help developing countries address the challenges of climate change. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently launched a climate finance initiative which put a global figure of roughly $100 billion every year by 2020 to help developing countries address climate change, including adapting to its impacts.
Thirdly, while developed countries must lead on climate change, and developing countries in South Asia will not take on national emission reduction targets, developing countries must pursue low carbon development paths if the world is to have a hope of tackling climate change.
South Asian Youth Climate Forum
From Maldives to Bhutan: South Asian Youth gather forces for climate action
If the “demographic dividend” of South Asia’s largely young population is to pay off, it must include the active engagement of South Asian youth on climate change. This was one of the key conclusions of the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change held in Nepal from 3-6th September.
South Asians already feel the impacts of climate change, and urgent action is necessary. Youth involvement must take place at two levels: At a philosophical level, it must include the beginnings of a paradigm shift in peoples’ relationship with nature – catching them young is the best option. At a more immediate level, there needs to be a coordinated groundswell of activity and awareness on climate change with engagement in the policy and negotiation process.
Such involvement is a ‘leveragable’ option on which youth have a particularly strong position – they are key stakeholders in the future, and therefore, crucial agents of change today. Capitalising on this asset at an opportune time is vital for effective change and a more secure planet.
At a time when there has been much debate about the voices of the Global South being heard in climate negotiations, the youth of South Asia have been actively involved in garnering other young people from their countries towards a whole gamut of actions – from engagement in policy advocacy, action campaigns, clean energy projects, outreach, science, communications, arts and culture and cleaner consumerism.
So far, engagement has largely been at a national level. But recognizing that South Asia as a region is highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, youth from the subcontinent came together to hold the South Asian Youth Summit on Climate Change this year.
The aim of the summit was to create a common platform that would bring youth from the region together and help energize action, enable information exchange, facilitate insights into climate change, and initiate efforts to align and synergize actions under a broader framework.
A key outcome of the summit was a South Asian Youth Declaration on Climate Change, as well as the initiation of youth networks in Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Youth intend to hand over copies of their declaration to the UNFCCC secretariat, SAARC countries and to the SAARC secretariat as well as national and international institutions and ministries. Another important process initiated through this platform, will be a South Asian delegation to Copenhagen, ideally with five members from each country being part of the process.
A key demand is for strong commitments from developed countries, particularly in funding mitigation and adaptation projects. However, China and India as advanced developing countries also have responsibilities in terms of emission reduction commitments. Another key demand is for a top-down, science-informed approach to setting targets for developed country and long-term emission reductions.
Chaitanya Kumar of the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) suggests youth are in a better position to leverage change, through a better understanding of the issues of their day, while capitalizing on creativity, entrepreneurial skills and political awareness. However, he also adds that there is a need for leadership from people in the policy making and business sectors to set the standards for sustainable practices across all sectors.
The youth believe that strong and relentless campaigning is necessary to get action from our leaders. In achieving actionable outcomes from this strategy, says Rishikesh Ram Bhandary of the Nepal Youth Climate Network (NYCN), Nepalese youth have been involved with writing position papers and holding briefings with government officials. They have also been recognized as the youth partners for Nepal’s National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).
Next steps include building mutual capacities, focus on a high ‘impact factor’ at Copenhagen, and building a network that works across and along all levels – from grassroots to country-level. More action can also be expected from South Asian country nodes in the run up to Copenhagen, which will in turn be uses as a building block securing a safer future.
MoEF and McKinsey GHG abatement reports
India’s projected emissions until 2031: 5 studies
India has historically rejected domestic greenhouse emissions reductions on the grounds that critical development and poverty alleviation would be seriously hampered. But a growing international reputation as a deal-breaker (including the collapse of the WTO talks in July 2008 for which many nations blamed India), seems to have been taken up by the Government’s high command quite seriously. A directive from the Prime Minister, allegedly asking Indian negotiators to engage positively in the UNFCCC negotiations appears to have had some effect in reframing its position on climate change.
As part of this re-branding effort, the GoI is supporting charismatic politicians such as Jairam Ramesh to argue publicly that ‘India wants to be a deal-maker’ and that ‘we have to take up bold new responsibilities that we have evaded so far’. (See Malini Mehra’s Column on the CCI Portal for more – www.climatechallengeindia.org )
Ramesh’s Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is also opening up and putting more information into the public domain. One example of this is the recently released compendium of GHG modeling studies that looks at India’s greenhouse gas emissions profile and projected emission trajectories up until 2030. The report ‘India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies’ was released by MoEF in August. Few of the studies are new (three of the studies were originally commissioned by the GoI), but they have now finally been compiled in one place and put in the public domain for discussion.
India GHG Emissions Profile: Results of Five Climate Modeling Studies
The report summarises the initial results of five studies which attempt to project India’s emissions profile over the next two decades. The five studies were undertaken respectively by the National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER); Integrated Research and Action for Development (IRADe); two studies by The Energy Resources Institute (TERI); and McKinsey and Company.
Each of the studies have differences in model structure, as well as model assumptions and parameters, and therefore project a range of results for India’s absolute and per capita emissions and energy intensities. The estimates for India’s per capita GHG emissions in 2030-31 vary in the studies from between 2.77 tonnes to 5.7 tonnes per capita per year; and in absolute terms, India’s GHG emissions by 2031 varies from 4 billion to 7.3 billion tonnes.
Subsequent phases of modeling will involve assessing mitigation options and costs, and economic and food security implications for India.
In general, the international debate on future emissions trajectories has been informed by results from complex models on energy-economy, energy-technology, GHG concentration, macroeconomic growth and impact models (water resources, agriculture, coastal impacts, diseases and so on). A majority of these studies, having been developed in the West and, it is argued, may not fully reflect the ground realities of economic growth or policy structure in India. This set of MoEF studies was initiated as an effort to use models that enable an integrated assessment of India’s emissions profile, while better reflecting regional policy and regulatory realities.
Each study also specifies an ‘illustrative’ scenario for 2030-31, that specifies total GHG emissions (indicated above), per capita GHG emissions (indicated above), GDP growth rate, commercial energy use, fall in energy intensity and fall in CO2 intensity. The common constraint across all studies for this illustrative scenario is that no new GHG mitigation policies are put in place. Such a scenario would indicate what India’s emissions would be under a ‘business as usual scenario’.
Even while energy intensity in India as well as around the world continues to drop, there is little doubt that the major proportion of economic growth (and therefore CO2 emissions) will come from countries like India. A McKinsey analysis suggests this growth will make India the third-largest energy consumer in the world.
18 months to action
However the plus side of this growth is an opportunity to leap-frog inefficient and/or coal-based technologies provided the cost of abatement– which is significant – would be met. A scenario detailing such cuts is developed in the latter part of the McKinsey report, for which carbon emissions in the ten largest sectors (consuming and emitting) in India have been analysed.
The report suggests that capturing these opportunities would push India into a ‘blue ocean space’ in the clean technology and energy security sectors. It also says that all necessary action at the centre is actionable within 18 months, given full backing of state and local governments, plus their own carbon-efficient growth plans.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- …
- 110
- Next Page »