End of week 2 reflections

As I sit in the Madrid airport, I reflect over the last two weeks and wonder if anything productive will come out of COP25. The negotiations continue for at least today, but I must get back home.

 
Some countries still think that we have plenty of time to figure things out (or to continue to ignore the climate change issue), despite the "time is running out" theme that was evident in the interventions of political leaders from cities to the head of the U.N., business leaders, youth, environmental organizations, and even scientists who are typically not prone to cries of urgency. The Emissions Gap report released in November provided a bleak picture of the state of greenhouse gas emissions especially when considered in context of the warnings provided in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C warming (above pre-industrial levels).

One of the strongest voices at COP25 and Time Magazine Person of the Year

If the draft text of the working groups is maintained by the Parties, there will be recognition, for the first time, of the critical importance of the oceans as an integral part of the Earth's climate system for both mitigation and adaptation. Despite alarming reports from the World Health Organization (see also the 2018 report) and the Lancet (a leading, well respected medical journal) that describe the negative health impacts of climate change and from air pollution released during the burning of fossil fuels, human health continues to be notably absent from any COP text except for vague references to human safety.

There do appear to be some advances in working out details for financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund, but little agreement has been reached on regulation of carbon markets.

The Paris Agreement developed in 2015 was for climate action post 2020. There was supposed to be additional work on pre-2020 action, but given that 2020 is less a month away, that article is essentially obsolete.

There was much discussion this week over the effectiveness of the UN process given that it was established in 1992 and there have been 25 annual conference of the parties, but little progress in solving climate change. I heard sharp criticism about the process from both former Secretary of State, John Kerry, and Jonathan Pershing, the former Special Envoy for Climate Change from the State Department and chief negotiator for the U.S. delegation. But while both argued that the real action is going to come at the local and regional (sub-national levels) and from the private sector, they also felt that it is important to keep countries talking as a reminder of the serious nature of this global issue.

Johnathan Pershing on the right

John Kerry

The Research and Independent NGOs, one of nine officially recognized constituencies of observer groups within the UNFCCC, has the opportunity to draft statements (interventions) for key plenary sessions throughout the COP. Because this group doesn’t advocate for any special position other than having evidence-based policy making, our statements are typically subdued or even bland. For whenever the COP closing plenary is, here is the statement that I drafted for this year:

The RINGOs would like to start by expressing appreciation for the Chilean COP Presidency’s recognition of the importance of “putting science at the center of COP25”, as the Minister noted on December 5th. We also applaud the first-ever virtual meeting of country science ministers held on Dec 4th in conjunction with the COP. 

A vast amount of relevant research data has been collected over the past several decades. Through 25 years of COPs, plentiful technical solutions for mitigation and adaptation as well as finance and market mechanisms have been developed, linking research with innovation at private and public levels. As has been said by many at COP25, it is now time to put research and the agreements into ACTION. 

RINGOs welcome the outcomes of COP25, but we urge all of us to continue to play a role in operationalizing and implementing the details of the Paris Agreement back home. Amid all of the technical discussions, the political processes, and acronyms, we must not forget to humanize climate change, and to help people better understand the implications of climate change for their own well-being as well as for the world around them. Through capacity building, we must give people the tools and empowerment to address climate change in their communities. We must push together so that no actor rests for a moment. 

The research community stands ready to serve as knowledge brokers to explain the regional relevance of the scientific evidence and COP decisions in our home communities and countries. We are also prepared to help the transformation of knowledge into day-to-day practice. The RINGOs encourage the private and public sectors to engage in climate action and move to a more circular economy, both in their work and in their local communities. We call for all stakeholders to become involved in promoting and applying science-based climate solutions. 

In conclusion, the RINGOs would like to express our sincere and deepest gratitude to the Governments and people of Chile and Spain for pulling together COP25 in such a short time. This was a good example of how the global north and south can come together and accomplish a great task - a metaphor for what we all now need to do to advance the provisions of the Paris Agreement and COP25.

With 2020 only 20 days away, subnational actors must be part of the equation

At the COP25 in Madrid, there is an emphasis on the role subnational actors can and should play in emissions reductions. According to Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), cities, for example, account for 80% of global GDP and 70% of emissions, and yet 90% of emissions from cities can be reduced with current technology. To raise ambition, countries should work with subnational partners to achieve Paris Agreement targets and Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is especially relevant as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement are up for renewal in 2020.

The Mayor of Bonn, Germany and ICLEI President, Ashok Sridharan, acknowledged the urgent nature of the problem, as highlighted by our youth taking to the streets. Bonn has pledged climate neutrality no later than 2035 and has identified more than 300 measures to enhance climate action that will be presented to their city council in the near future. Close to 300 cities have declared climate neutrality, and with the 50^th anniversary of Earth Day around the corner, ICLEI asserts that now is the time for more cities to make this commitment.  

Turku, Finland, has innovative programs that have attracted international attention. Minna Arve, the Mayor of Turku, said they are transitioning to renewable energy by 2025, are phasing out coal, and have committed to longer-term goals so that there will be political continuity. They are taking strides towards a circular economy by setting goals to become waste-free and have developed a platform to involve large and small businesses and universities.  

The Mayors of Recife, Brazil, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania discussed ways that cities can contribute to climate action despite lack of federal support. Recife has pledged neutrality by 2050 with significant action by 2030, and an integration of climate change into the school curriculum, which, by its nature, informs and engages families. Pittsburgh has focused on rebuilding the city in a post-industrial era, with an emphasis on technology and a P4 policy that tax-funded projects must address all four economic standards of people, planet, place, and performance.

The private sector also has a significant role to play in increasing ambition towards Paris Agreement targets and Sustainable Development Goals.  British Telecommunications is one of the first companies to set a 1.5°C goal and has pledged net zero by 2045 and an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. They have invested in renewable energy, are transitioning to an electric fleet, and have created smart apps for transport to reduce wasted emissions (and time) spent searching for parking. They require their suppliers to reduce emissions and have thereby found that buyers have considerable power and send critical demand signals to the market. Through their combined efforts, they saved 11.7 million tons of carbon last year.

The Coalition for Urban Transitions recently launched a report Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity (link) that involved more than 50 partners. It emphasizes that investments now will yield benefits that exceed costs. Cities will be cheaper to build and operate and tens of millions of jobs will be created with green innovation.

The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy also had a strong showing at the COP. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke of the impending paradigm shift that should be all-inclusive and leave no one behind. He said if we don’t shape it, something else (i.e., the climate) will. It was also discussed that cities present the biggest challenges to climate action and sustainability but also the biggest opportunities.

In addition to their critical role in emissions reductions, the Global Environmental Facility, a Fund established in 1992 to help address environmental problems of global significance, has found that cities are ideal for pilot projects and new program incubation. However, collaboration with federal and state governments is needed for efficient implementation. As an example, to reduce emissions in the transportation sector, federal governments can establish vehicle efficiency standards, state and regional governments can establish electric vehicle charging networks, and local governments can create and enact zoning regulations for walkable communities. With COP25 Chile-Madrid the last COP before 2020, and indeed, with 2020 a mere 20 days away, this is the right moment for increased ambition and collaboration at national and subnational levels.

Is Higher Education Playing a Leading Role in Climate Action? Part I.

The report “Higher Education’s Role in Adapting to a Changing Climate” was prepared in 2011 by the Higher Education Climate Adaptation Committee—a group of experts and institutional leaders in the United States—that is convened and coordinated by Second Nature in support of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Although it is a bit dated by this point, the report does include a relevant list of things that higher education should be considering in terms of climate action. While at COP25, I have been thinking a lot about this list as prompts for series of blog posts. In the first of this series, I will focus on a quote from the Executive Summary of that report:

Higher education has taken a leadership role in climate mitigation — that is, preventing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

In 2006, twelve college and university presidents initiated ACUPCC and eventually, hundreds of institutions signed on to a commitment in which they were to a) develop a plan to achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible; b) complete an comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the institution; and c) make the action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available. Jennie Stephens, from Northeastern’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs is an expert in the social-political aspects of renewable energy transformation. Writing in The Conversation in 2018, Dr. Stephens argues that climate advocacy “has become well established on US campuses over the past decade,” with over 600 schools signing the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment.

To date, now thirteen years after the formation of ACUPCC, there are 6 signatory institutions that have achieved carbon neutrality according to Second Nature. Others plan to achieve this milestone by either 2025 or 2050 (but so do at least six states). Some campuses have been engaged in energy efficiency initiatives, either through new construction of LEED certified buildings or simply as a cost savings measure. Some institutions simply participate in mandatory demand response programs to curtail electrical use at critical times (e.g. during a heat wave) to minimize the chance of an electrical blackout. In the same article referenced above, Dr. Stephens noted that as of 2018, only 150 campuses globally had committed to divest their holdings in fossil fuel companies, and only about one-third of those are in the U.S.

Given these numbers, I would argue that overall, institutions of higher education are not demonstrating strong climate action leadership. There are exceptions of course (Monash University in Australia comes to mind). But given the research and innovation that universities are typically known for, we can and should be doing better, especially given the urgency needed to address climate change as outlined in the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 °C and strongly reiterated in the special reports the IPCC published this year on Climate Change and Land and on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

These signs are seen frequently around the COP25 venue

~~ 

The Executive Summary from the 2011 report that I referenced at the start of this post notes that “campuses face direct risks to their operations and infrastructure from the impacts of climate disruption,” and thus, have the unique opportunity to role-model solutions in their own operations. Earlier today, I attended the 10th World Climate Summit that is held annually in conjunction with the COPs. While this is very much a business and investment-focused event, I went to a session entitled “Physical Climate Risk and Response” hosted by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm. In a small group exercise, they asked attendees to consider the four questions in the screen shot below.

Discussion questions posed during a session hosted by McKinsey & Company

These seem like important questions for all institutions (including higher education) to be asking; I am curious as to how people at my campus would respond. One of the points made by the facilitators of this session was that climate risk should be integrated into the risk management framework of any organization. Thus, these questions seem like important ones for each campus to be asking as part of their own risk management. Without good answers to these questions, it would be difficult for an institution to take on one of the recommendations from the 2011 ACUPCC report where the authors suggested that higher education could also "serve as ‘hubs’ in their local communities for creating, testing, and disseminating knowledge about regional climate projections and adaptation strategies, and should work directly with their local communities to explain the science and implement solutions."

COP25 from the Moravian College student perspective

Greetings from COP25! With so many different panels and presentations to choose from, it is difficult to focus on just one, but for this post I will elaborate upon one of my favorites thus far. The Bangladesh Pavilion hosted an event that consisted of three presentations and a panel, followed by a brief discussion. The overarching theme of the three presentations was the importance of universities as knowledge brokers and the issues that university researchers face when sharing their work, especially on climate change. David Lewis began the series of presentations by delving into his current research project which he is conducting through his own university (London School of Economics) and three other partnering universities; one other in the Global North and two in the Global South. Shababa Haque and Feisal Rahman from the Independent University of Bangladesh followed with concurring presentations. The diversity of the research partners gives light to the differences experienced by university faculty researchers in various parts of the world, though the flow of knowledge has been shifting from North to South to a more balanced sharing of ideas. The preliminary conclusion reached by Lewis is that universities are underutilized as knowledge brokers as the research conducted in these institutions often remains in an “ivory tower.” This is problematic because valuable research, such as that on climate change, does not adequately reach the world of public policy, which includes not only government officials, but civil society and businesses as well. All three presentations touched on the importance of researchers engaging in policy so that it is science, not politics, that leads policy changes. And now to you Carter…

…Thanks Hannah. These presentations about higher education and the impact it can have on policy gave way to a discussion panel consisting of three experts in their respected fields about the importance of knowledge dissemination. The experts discussed how the lowest income countries place a higher value on education as opposed to higher income countries; the United States has no mention of education in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The panel then went on to describe how scientific jargon can muddle laymen’s understanding of complex topics, thus leading to insufficient public policy. This links back to the knowledge contained in the ivory tower as in-depth scientific conclusions currently require higher education to fully comprehend the severity of their implications. As of now, the status quo remains that policy drives scientific exploration as opposed to the desired inverse of data driven policy. If this were the case, the panel suggested that recent college graduates could be the ones to take the jargon from the experienced scientific community and properly convey the complex information in an adequate and pertinent manner as to effectively implement necessary policy changes. Another proposed solution by the panel members was the weaving and braiding of indigenous methodologies into Eurocentric practices as a way to quell and remedy both social and environmental challenges. Indigenous societies possess traditional knowledge which is beneficial to a balanced flow of information and the scientific and public policy communities can learn from this model. Overall, much is still needed to be done in order to strike a balance between the knowledge known and the knowledge gathered, thus ushering us into a new era: an era where policy is governed by the most informed, not those who scream the loudest.

Climate XXXX Emergency

Climate Change Emergency

Once you get off the subway station at the conference venue, you are met with the texts “Climate Emergency” and “#TimeForAction.”  Statistics are listed to support this claim, including melting glaciers, desertification and climate migration.  Last week, in advance of COP 25, the European Parliament adopted a resolution to declare a “climate emergency,” calling for a European Green Deal.  As we were reminded in the opening ceremony, the world has allowed too much time to elapse, and rather than decreasing emissions by 3.3%/year (if we had started a decade ago), we have increased emissions by 1.5%/year.  The recent UNEP emissions gap report claims that we are aiming for a 3.2C increase by 2100 — if countries succeed with their current pledges for decreasing emissions.  The countries, particularly the G20 countries that account for 78% of emissions, need to be much more ambitious if we are to keep the temperature rise to under 2C.  So, there is a palpable change in the negotiations — transformation change is required, and many are talking about the climate emergency.  Yet, from all of the science and impacts we are already seeing, I wonder how long it will take for the COP to recognize a climate crisis?  It seems the time has come for a shift in our language, ambition, and action. 

Heading to COP25

It is time for my annual trek to the United Nations climate meetings; my colleague, two students, two Moravian College alums, and I are about to head to COP25 in Madrid. This is our 11th COP as delegates of the college; we have brought over 30 students to these negotiations on the global stage since 2009. Until a few weeks ago, we thought we were headed to Santiago, Chile, but civil unrest there led to the government canceling the plans. Somehow, the United Nations and Spain found a way to organize this global event in different city, country and continent -- all in about a week! We won't talk about the disruption to plans made months earlier and, for many, lost deposits and airfare. 

I am preparing my presentation for a side event (panel) entitled Contributions of higher education to climate action and implementation of the Paris Agreement and came across this 11/26/19 post from David Hess, former secretary of the PA Department of Environmental Protection, entitled Major Businesses, Higher Ed Institutions Write To Members Of House, Senate Urging Pennsylvania To Accelerate Transition To A Low-Carbon Economy. I was interested to see the comments of neighboring college CEOs from eastern PA. 

There is also an interesting recent 5-part essay entitled How will higher education respond to climate change that begins here. This series was written by Bryan Alexander, an internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher, working in the field of how technology transforms education. Dr. Alexander has a Ph.D. in English, so speaks from the humanities perspective. For the first time that I recall, there is a COP25 side event that will focus on the humanities: Enhancing the Paris Ambition: Universities, Science, Humanities and Arts Interfaces 4 Future Life. I look forward to attending that session.

If you wonder why any of this matters, neither the most recent (greenhouse gas) Emissions Gap Report for 2019 nor the latest climate change research present a very positive scenario [see here for a summary, ref 1]. The students that we are currently educating will face a very different world in terms of climate and geo-political instability than we know now (think forced migrations, food and water insecurity, growing health concerns, and conflict). What will student success mean under these conditions? As we prepare individuals for transformative leadership in a world of change (part of the Moravian mission), are we preparing them for this change? Our campus InFocus programming is a start. Lest you think that I am being a bit melodramatic, check out this 11/29/19 article from The New Humanitarian [2].

If I still have your interest, here are two additional thoughts to consider:

1) Two weeks ago, the National Council for Science and the Environment released a report [3] showing the results of a survey of climate science publications from land grant and large R1 institutions from each state. One striking finding is that although institutions are working on regionally relevant climate research, they do little to communicate this data and its relevance to local decision makers. A few years ago at a gathering of environmental groups, faculty and students from the Lehigh Valley Association of Independent Colleges and other regional institutions, science faculty clearly expressed their reluctance to get involved in advocacy related to climate change or other local environmental challenges. Thus, this communication gap is not limited to the R1s.

2) A scientist from the German Development Institute and his colleagues recently completed an analysis [4] on whether countries indicate that education is necessary to implement Nationally Determined Contributions (to reducing greenhouse gas emissions). The bottom line according to Pieter Pauw is that "the lower the income levels of the countries, the larger the share of countries that states that education is necessary to implement the NDCs." The U.S. submitted their NDC in 2016, but there is no mention of education in it.

Screen shot from the NDC Explorer (Pauw, et al. 2017)

People I talked to over the past few weeks are curious as to how those of us from the U.S. will be "welcomed" given that we have formally begun the process of pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the only country to do so out of 196 states plus the European Union [5, 6]. That remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

Selected Works Cited:

1. Berwyn, B. "Climate Tipping Points Are Closer Than We Think, Scientists Warn." InsideClimate News, November 27, 2019.

2.  "Ebola setback, ‘starvation’ in Zimbabwe, and COP25 preparations: The Cheat Sheet." The New Humanitarian, Nov 29, 2019.

3. Goldman,  E.B. and M. Hyams. 2019. Climate Science Research in the United States and U.S. Territories: Survey of Scientific Publications from Selected Public Universities (2014-2018). The National Council for Science and the Environment: Washington, D.C.

4. Pauw, W.P, Cassanmagnano, D., Mbeva, K., Hein, J., Guarin, A., Brandi, C., Dzebo, A., Canales, N., Adams, K.M., Atteridge, A., Bock, T., Helms, J., Zalewski, A., Frommé. E., Lindener, A., Muhammad, D. (2016). NDC Explorer. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). DOI: 10.23661/ndc_explorer_2017_2.0´

5. Friedman, L. "Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement." The New York Times, November 4, 2019; available here. 

6. Hersher, R. "U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement." NPR All Things Considered, Novermber 4, 2019; available here.

A look to future meetings

As usual, this UN Climate Change Conference was packed with negotiations, informal consultations, and side events. I attempted to soak up every minute I could and to catch up on the details of the negotiations after being absent (in person, anyway) for two years. Here is a great summary of the proceedings at this conference: https://www.carbonbrief.org/bonn-climate-talks-key-outcomes-from-june-2019-un-climate-conference.  I also took tons of notes and would be happy to answer any questions anyone may have (email me at twbrown@mail.usf.edu).

By their nature, the negotiations at these meetings build on each other.  As such, there was frequent mention of two upcoming meetings:

·       2019 Climate Summit in New York City. Here, there will be a major focus on increasing ambition. As NDCs are up for renewal in 2020, it is especially important for countries to step up their contributions to the Paris Agreement goals of keeping global average temperature increase to well below 2°C and striving to limit temperature increase to 1.5°C. There have been requests to limit speeches and focus on commitments.

·       COP25 in Santiago, Chile, which is being touted as both the Blue COP, in recognition of the upcoming IPCC report on Oceans and the important role oceans play in global economies and in a sustainable future, and as the Citizen’s COP, recognizing the importance of access and involvement by all. 

·       Observer organizations were granted a meeting with the incoming COP25 President, and the following was noted from the discussion.

o   COP25 is the last COP before countries need to renew NDCs so increasing ambition is especially important. The COP25 President wants to see ocean protection in NDC Revisions for 2025.

o   We must finish the Article 6 Rulebook – for market and non-market mechanisms.

o   The COP25 President wants gender to be discussed as part of every item.  She said we don’t need just a gender focus on adaptation but also need increased participation by women, especially with goals to raise ambition. They are also working to include indigenous peoples throughout the conference.

o   The COP25 President said that people are more aware now, so we need to use this force to increase ambition. We can use citizens’ force to bring actors to the table for countries that may consider leaving the agreement, and to encourage subnational participation. She also said that participation by civil society is key, and that we need to have more agreements to work together that include local governments.

·       Logistics of COP25

o   There will be a Blue Zone for badged participants to access all official events including delegation rooms, country pavilions, negotiation rooms, rooms for plenaries and side events, NGO spaces, and restaurants. 

o   The Green Zone will be open to and adjacent to the Blue Zone. The Green Zone will be for the public including Chilean and international visitors from NGOs and the public and private sectors. They should feature interactive and interesting exhibits to get the community involved. Blue Zone badges will have access to the Green Zone, and because of their close proximity, it should be a smooth transition between the two zones.

o   Every delegate will receive a free pass for public transportation. There is a subway of 7-8 lines and buses.

o   They are working for the event to be sustainable and carbon neutral.

·       The location of COP26 is still being discussed but will likely be in the UK or in Milan.

The roles of subnational actors in climate action

At the SB50, subnational actors were highlighted as relevant players in increasing ambition towards Paris Agreement goals. As a Natural Resources Manager for local government, I was glad to see this. While we should continue to encourage the US to play a leadership role in achieving Paris Agreement goals, it is increasingly being recognized that state governments, local governments, corporations, communities and individuals all have roles to play. Several side events I attended focused on subnational action.  

Advancing Ambition through Multilevel and Collaborative Climate Action

This session featured speakers from ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), the NDC Partnership, International Collaboration for Climate Action (ICCA) and REN21. Here are a few of the session highlights:

·       NDC Goals would not be met without collaborative action. Member countries are increasingly requesting support for designing and implementing climate actions at subnational levels. Such vertical climate action has a strong focus on cross-sectoral activities such as waste, transportation, health, and water.

·       Challenges – regions are affected differently by climate change, local players may not have complete knowledge of the country’s NDC, regions that do not suffer visible environmental damage may not be as aware of the NDC or the need to act, local governments may face scarcity of financial resources, it can be difficult to develop regionally coherent strategies, and local authorities often have difficulties accessing climate finance.

·        Cities will play a vital role in reducing emissions, and they are the centers for innovation and job creation. Cities need funding from state and national govts. Efforts are needed to ensure we more effectively include and engage subnational governments.

·       Urban-LEDS II (Urban Low Emission Development Strategies) project in brief – integrated low emission and resilience development in more than 60 cities and towns in 8 countries from planning to implementation. Climate change and resilience can’t be separated at the local government, and sector silos (energy, waste, transportation, etc.) are artificial and work needs to occur across these sectors.

·       ICLEI is working with the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy to track subnational contributions, so they can be included in NDCs, and hopefully raise ambition.

·       Local governments often need finance for policy implementation. They receive multiple benefits including assistance with analysis (e.g., developing greenhouse gas inventories and identifying climate risks), reporting (e.g., reporting climate and emissions data, and tracking progress to assess gaps and opportunities), action (e.g., engaging with stakeholders and developing and implementing action plans and policies), and capacity building (e.g., training and sharing good practices and tools).

·       Hironori Hamanaka, Chair of ICLEI Japan, spoke of how local governments in Japan are mandated to develop plans towards climate action. The overall goal is a decarbonized society and carbon neutrality as early as possible in the second half of this century. They acknowledge the IPCC 1.5C report, and are aiming to decarbonize major sectors including energy, manufacturing, and transport by 2050. They are working to create a circular and ecological economy. Big cities such as Kyoto, Tokyo, Nagano have established their own specific goals and targets.

·        Lea Ranalder or REN21 discussed the preliminary findings of their recent Renewables in Cities Global Status Report. They consolidate renewable energy (RE) data across all sectors and strive to show that the transition to renewables is happening and at what level/pace. REN21 recently became interested in cities because half of the world’s population lives in cities, and 65% of energy demand is in cities. Cities are major players in climate change policy and are often more ambitious than their national counterparts.  Drivers for RE in cities include climate change, health, air pollution, local revenue, socioeconomic development, and energy security.  She noted that ambition translates into results – at least 100 cities worldwide use 70% or more RE. For more information: Ren21.net/cities; Cities Report - Preliminary Findings; Global Status Report

·       Audience commentary: Should we start tracking Locally Determined Contributions (LDC) that align with NDCs? It is good practice to have local government representatives within the delegation. Decentralized energy systems will be key to transition away from energy monopolies. Local governments have so much potential in heating, cooling, and transport, not just electricity.

All scales of government to achieve 100% renewables

This session featured speakers from Global100RE (go100re.net), ICLEI, WWEA, and REN21.

·       Saturday launched first Global Day for Renewable Energy in partnership with the FridaysforFuture. They are calling it World REnew Day and are aiming for events around the world in future years (Press release).

·       Working to make a goal of 100% RE the new norm.

·       NDCs should have strong local dimensions. *Pioneers are often local.*

·       Need national support schemes for local governments to improve communication, data collection, cross-level cooperation and coordination. Barriers and challenges include: knowledge gaps, extant structures and persistent notions, limited economic capacity, divergent priorities, lack of mandates, inflexibility.

·       To enhance local-national cooperation: empower local government, develop proactive policies, lead by example, use policies from around the world and modify them for local use, start small if necessary, ensure transparent data collection, set science-based targets that are achievable yet ambitious, contextualize measures and tools.

·       Thinking of developing a Climate City Cup to recognize cities for data collection in areas of air pollution, mobility, energy consumption.

·       Benefits of local RE ownership: increase in local wealth, citizens become drivers, democratic structures are strengthened. Make sure locals receive benefits, to minimize resistance.

·       Irena Coalition for Action has a White Paper on Broadening the Ownership of Renewables and another White Paper in progress on Financing Community Energy.

·       Costa Rica has 100% RE; may serve as an example for other countries.

Climate Resilient Infrastructure

During a Climate Resilient Infrastructure side event, we heard from a variety of speakers discussing climate action. GIZ, a German service provider in international development and education, described their project portfolio, of which 1/3 is climate-related. Carlos Fuller of Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) in Belize and chief negotiator for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) spoke of a risk management tool called CCORAL that supports climate compatible development; with the tool, users answer a series of yes or no questions and the tool helps them determine if their project is low, medium or high climate risk. This tool can help evaluate projects such as a revised transportation plan or road upgrade to the port. In one example, the Caribbean Development Bank incorporated climate design and elevated a road to reduce risk.


We also heard from Darryl Danyluk of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO), with representation from 100 nations. They are concerned with infrastructure vulnerable to extreme weather events. Infrastructure is designed for a long service life (~50 years), but climate uncertainty requires additional planning and investment up front.  Design codes can be dated when a one in 100-year flood becomes a one in 20-year flood. It is also important to consider that infrastructure is often interdependent; for example, when a culvert collapses from flooding, that failure may impact a co-located gas line, water line, stormwater system, or sewage management system. Population growth, especially in coastal areas and along rivers, has exacerbated infrastructure problems. He gave an example from Calgary in which a wastewater treatment plant was inundated with floodwaters and waste from half a million people went into the river, which then flowed past other towns before reaching the ocean. While this was the fourth such event in 120 years, this event was especially consequential because of the population right along the river.


Several country representatives added to the discussion. Nilesh Prakash, of the Republic of Fiji mentioned that major climatic events impacted many sectors in 2016, and in 2018, they experienced back-to-back cyclones. Climatic events are becoming more intense and more frequent. They are not insuring houses but are insuring households, and the government subsidizes insurance premiums. A representative from Ghana mentioned that they are in a data gathering stage to help improve stability in public assets. Efforts are focused in Accra, which is home to a small percentage of the population but generates 25% of the GDP. When Accra is impacted, it affects the entire country. They are conducting cost-benefit analyses to show how risk reduction now might reduce future losses, and are working to improve data quality by identifying risks, tracking historical loss data, and maintaining a registry of public assets to determine who owns the risk. A representative from Costa Rica mentioned that prime insurance rates are lowered for projects that incorporate adaptation measures, and that this is especially relevant for small farms.

Koronivia joint work on agriculture – Part 2

Session II of the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture consisted of presentations by constituted bodies and financing entities.  Here is a recap:

·       Green Climate Fund (GCF) – Areas of focus include agriculture, forest and land use, and cities.   Supports projects involving capacity building, climate analysis, and project preparation. Goals include reduced exposure and risk, and food security. Metrics include % of food secure households and area (ha) of land made more resilient to climate change through modified agriculture practices. Adaptation investment criteria include impact potential, sustainable development and co-benefits (mitigation, biodiversity, health, etc.), and (interestingly) paradigm shift potential. Lessons learned since 2015 include 1) Ensuring adaptation is the primary driver of projects, instead of projects that are construction-based with adaptation co-benefits, 2) Clearly defining project objectives, and 3) Measuring co-benefits for greater overall project impacts.

·       Global Environmental Facility (GEF) – Have invested $1.8B in adaptation projects so far, with
28 million beneficiaries and 7 million ha of land made climate resilient (three of their metrics). They seek to fund projects that are cross-cutting in addressing mitigation, land degradation, and biodiversity. In assessing adaptation benefits, they use core indicators, measure context specific results, and promote knowledge management, dissemination, and evaluation. Their work is guided and informed by the gender policy.  Example – Project in Mozambique using Farmers Field School Approach. Challenges include the qualitative and indirect nature of adaptation results, lack of universal methods and data, and multifocal projects that generate co- benefits but result in increased costs of implementation and monitoring. Lessons learned include recognizing that not all benefits can be quantified and that common definitions are needed.

·       Adaptation Fund – For adaptation projects, they have invested $870m, of which $201m came from certified emissions reductions (CER) and $655m from developed countries contributions.
They categorize projects by sector, such as risk reduction, food security, water management, forests, coastal zone management, and cities. Project selection criteria include concrete adaptation actions, inclusion of marginalized groups (e.g., the most vulnerable, youth, women), and consistency with national strategies. Countries applying should be party to the Kyoto Protocol and projects should have endorsement by their government. Projects should be linked to the climate threat, not business as usual (BAU). Project examples include: 1) Adaptation in water and agriculture in Eritrea by implementing improved irrigation, soil and water conservation, afforestation, and weather and early warning systems; 2) Protecting oasis zones in Morocco by optimizing flood waters, preserving palm trees, diversifying income sources to improve living conditions, and teaching women weaving, cooking, and other trades; 3) Project in Uruguay that involves youth, builds meteorological and weather stations, and provides training; and 4) Project in the Indian Himalayas that targets marginalized communities, rejuvenates mountain springs, provides drip irrigation, establishes water use groups in each village, and employs resilient horticultural varieties. 

Comments from workshop participants include:

·       Representative of the World Farmer's Organization- Climate discussions can't be about farmers; it must be with farmers. Data is the new gold in agriculture, and even remote farmers have access. He said farmers learn more from other farmers than from anyone else, which is a good point to remember.

·       Teresa Anderson, Action Aid: Agroecology is a very effective form of adaptation. Indicators may include number of trainings, number of farmers using agroecology, and other metrics that can be tracked by farmers and farm organizations, not just consultants tracking carbon. She spoke passionately about using agroecology and commented on the empowerment it provides including in food security and with gender aspects.

·       Indigenous Peoples’ Caucus, Guatemala - UNFCCC has recognized the value of indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge. They have concern with large agricultural companies because they contribute to GHGs, destruction of lands, forests and indigenous people, and they affect food security. Often their impacts are hidden. They ask that governments recognize traditional knowledge and practices when implementing agricultural (and other) projects.

·       Soil health is a public, private, and wider societal good. 

·       Need to establish soil health targets for adaptation and mitigation and need stronger integration into NDCs. This will require providing countries with support to raise ambition on soil health-related targets.

·       Recommendations for realignment of subsidies to promote improved soil health and ecosystem services essential for sustainable agriculture.

·       There is a need to improve Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) of soil health and soil carbon to reward farmers for positive externalities they generate.

·       Global Environment Facility (GEF)  has seven Impact Programs including Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration (FOLUR).  They take a landscape approach and have Sustainable Forest Management projects in the Amazon, Congo, and drylands. 

·       It can be a challenge aligning different stakeholders (e.g., ministries of environment, agriculture, energy, finance, private sector – getting them all to talk). Consider different approaches with each and find a common way to bring them together.

The third session of the workshop was opened with a plenary by Ronald Vargas, the Secretary of the Global Soil Partnership on Sustainable Soil Management.

·       33% of soils are highly degraded, which means we are losing productivity and producing emissions. Degradation includes soil compaction, erosion, and loss of biodiversity. Soil organic carbon (SOC) loss is the second biggest threat to soil function. There is a lot opportunity to reverse this, if we follow good practices.

·       60% of SOC is comprised of soil organic matter. When good practices are followed, it takes several years to build up the soil organic matter. However, there are multiple co-benefits of sustainable soil management and SOC sequestration.

·       Monitoring occurs through remote sensing and field surveys. Remote sensing is most helpful to determine land use and cover but cannot replace field surveys because information is gained by sampling at depths to determine how carbon is distributed throughout the soil layers.

·       Are countries ready to report following MRV (measuring, reporting, valuation) guidelines? Do we have enough info on SOC dynamics that can be used in decision-making?

·       Challenges and Gaps – baseline soil carbon stocks, ground data, default data for reporting, quality standards and guidelines, uncertainty.

·       Without baseline data, no basis for comparison to measure changes. We need a global soil survey using the same sampling protocol, and then need a global monitoring system based on national systems. 

·       RECSOIL – Recarbonization of Global Soils – a tool/facility to implement the Koronivia decision.

·       Conclusions – need harmonized methodologies, need to scale up good practices, need additional indicators beyond SOC, need incentives for farmers, need to establish a global soil carbon monitoring system, and need to strengthen capacity of member countries.

·       Crop residues are good for soil fertility but concern about attracting pests (e.g., rats).

·       The soil carbon sequestration market is struggling; soil projects not accepted in CDM.

·       While it is expensive to invest in improving soil carbon, you get many benefits (productivity, water retention, soil biodiversity, etc.) that continue after the project.

Mary Sakala, smallholder farmer in Zambia - Changing precipitation patterns impact farmers who rely on rainfed crops. Applying fertilizers and herbicides increase the heat in soils already facing drought; these affect soil microorganisms and ants. Fertilizers tend to focus on NPK exclusively, but micronutrients are also needed; soils often have a deficit of 13 nutrients, which are only obtainable through agroecology methods including minimum tillage, green manure, soil erosion reduction, and using seed, crop and animal diversity. Agroecology is best for adaptation and water management, and the more you use agroecology, the higher the yield (vs the more you use chemicals, the more degraded the soil gets). She also suggested we stop subsidizing fertilizers. 

Workshop agenda and presentations

More information on Koronivia joint work on agriculture

Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture – Part 1

From COP23 in 2017, the SBSTA and SBI were asked to jointly address agricultural issues, considering the vulnerabilities of agriculture and food security to climate change.  At this meeting in Bonn, a series of workshops were held under the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture. 

Talks focused on agricultural soil carbon, health, and fertility. Claire Chenu, Professor of Soil Sciences at the AgroParisTech, gave the keynote presentation on soil carbon as the key to addressing vulnerabilities of agriculture to climate change and food security issues.  She noted that there is three times more carbon in soils than in the atmosphere. Soils provide essential ecosystem services including those related to agriculture, biodiversity, forests, water quality, cultural services, landscaping, and nutrients.  Organic matter in soils provide further ecosystem services including structure, water infiltration and retention, aeration, nutrient provision, and habitat for beneficial organisms.  Protection of soils is important for food security and agricultural resilience, and furthers Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

·       SDG 2.4 (Zero Hunger/Sustainable Food Production),

·       SDG 3.9 (Good Health and Well-Being/Reducing Soil Pollution),

·       SDG 12.4 (Responsible Consumption and Production/Sound Chemical Management), and

·       SDG 15.3 (Protect Life on Land/Restore Degraded Land and Soil).

There are two main strategies in soil protection: 1) Protect existing soil organic carbon stocks (e.g., by avoiding the plowing of grasslands), and 2) Improve soil carbon stocks (e.g., by returning crop residues to the soil).  The size of the organic carbon pool depends on inputs (such as by primary production, and through exogenous organic matter) and outputs (such as leaching, erosion, biodegradation and mineralization).  Options for soil protection include increasing primary production, supplementing soils through organic inputs, reducing tillage, and using conservation agriculture or agroforestry methods. 

There are some noteworthy challenges to modifying soil conservation practices to increase soil carbon stocks. Inputs of water and nutrients may be needed and are not always available. Biological nitrogen fixation can be used instead of synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, however. There may also be some negative social impacts resulting from land use change to carbon farming that may lead to pressure on land tenure and family farming. By providing an enabling environment that includes training, capacity building, credit, investment, land tenure security, and incentives, and addressing these challenges from the onset, risks can be reduced, and project benefits maximized.

While various measures may be used to increase soil carbon stocks, eventually carbon storage limits will be reached. However, ecosystem services including improved soil productivity will continue. In response to a question from the audience, Ms. Chenu clarified that these measures are not meant to offset agricultural emissions but to be part of the portfolio of solutions. Enhancing soil carbon stocks is a mitigation and adaptation measure with many worthwhile co-benefits.

Following the opening keynote address, representatives from various countries and organizations provided presentations. The following represents some highlights from the talks.

·       Brazil – Gustavo Mozer:  In the 1970s, Brazil was far from being a food secure country because agricultural practices involved intensive tillage for seed bed preparation and weed management.  Brazil invested in agriscience by establishing six research centers and employing over 650 researchers. They now have programs in tropical agriculture including plant breeding, animal breeding, and advanced soil conservation. Through these programs, they aim to address multiple benefits including carbon balance.  Forty years later, Brazil became a relevant export country. 

·       United States - Karen Ross, Secretary of CA Dept of Food and Agriculture: California has the 5^th largest economy in the world and is home to 40 million people and 77,000 farms, producing over 400 crops. They have recently suffered from the most severe droughts and wildfires in history, so they felt compelled to increase their efforts to curtail emissions. They have set a goal of 40% emission reductions below 1990 levels by 2030.  As one of their six strategies to reach this goal, they turned to improved soil management and health and have been working with the agricultural sector on reducing greenhouse gases.  Their Healthy Soils Initiative, a collaboration of partners and state departments, promotes healthy soils on CA farmlands and ranchlands. They also have a program of Climate Smart Agriculture and strive to ensure every farmer has the opportunity to ensure long-term productivity and food security.

·       Philippines on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprised of 10-member states: They represent more than 1/3 of world population, and more than half of the population is under the age of 30. They employ the ASEAN Guidelines on soil and nutrient management to promote climate resilient agricultural production. Included in this is good soil and nutrient management practices, use of the FAO-UNESCO Soil Classification System, and fertilizer amendment labelling compliance.

·       Russian Federation - State Program for the Development of Agriculture and Regulation of Agricultural Commodity Markets. To reduce risks, they cultivate high yield, climate-adapted crops. Overall, their winter crops are doing well due to warmer winters, but their summer crops are not. They employ forest reclamation and afforestation belts to reduce drought, water loss and wind erosion, increase yields, and protect flora and fauna. They are implementing Stalin’s Plan for Nature Transformation, which includes forest protection, crop rotation, and protection of lakes and ponds. Through these measures, they have seen a decrease in evaporation by 15% and a reduction in soil salinization in agricultural areas. They are in the process of preparing for ratification of the Paris Agreement. 

·       Senegal – Lamine Diatta, Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development; represents countries in Africa. They have a diverse range of soil and land use systems, some comprising very large land areas, some with infertility or low fertility (based on the level of soil organic matter). The government has committed to sustainable resolution of soil fertility loss. They use a national framework for strategic investment on sustainable land management (CNIS-GDT). Agroforestry methods they employ include assisted natural regeneration, protection of grazing areas, improved pasture lands, composting of organic matter, conservation of water to reduce water runoff, and small-scale irrigation programs. They shared lessons learned, including 1) Tradeoffs between soil carbon storage and soil fertility/productivity; 2) Biomass as the main source of carbon inputs, with land degradation is a major driver of loss; 3) Soil lab analyses are costly and challenging; and 4) A need to set up low cost and accurate tools for monitoring and reporting C flux. For information on the models they use to estimate the carbon sequestration potential of Senegal arable soil, please see Century Model - Tschakert, 2004, and RothC model – Loum et al., 2014.