21 pages of text reduced to 14

Today, the draft text has been updated and published. Christiana Figueres spoke to the Civil Society Observers earlier today, and she pointed out that in the "Committee of Paris" process, there has been an acceleration of negotiations.  Over the past three days, there have been parallel negotiations on various aspects of the text, and no one party has seen the entire text until it was released today at 3 PM. Allowing five hours for the Parties to read the text and prepare responses, over three hours have been devoted to listening to the Parties' responses since 8 PM. The President has reminded the Parties that while all countries have the right to reflect on the statement, the plan is to continue work tonight in order to have another text by tomorrow afternoon, which will be *close* to the text for adoption on Friday.

The COP President is hoping that articles 12-26 (with the exception of 15, 18 and 19) can be sent in advance to the linguistic and legal language team to review.  The remaining concerns include dissatisfaction with finance, adaptation, loss & damage, REDD+, and ambition. The majority of countries want to include the 1.5 degree goal, which is perhaps the best news of the week.  However, there are still significant challenges for the next two days.

I applaud Ms. Figueres, who responded to an Observer who wanted to include "food security" in the text.  She pointed out that the priority needs to be to have an agreement -- and pointed out that by its very existence, a global agreement would be our best bet for "food security, water security, health security, and well-being security." As the text goes forward, there will be a need for compromise and the text will lose specificity.  It won't be perfect, but to have an adopted text is essential for moving forward.

 

Word Cloud of Current Text (12/9) created with Tagul.com

Phasing Out Coal

The European Union has been upstaged in recent weeks by the US/China agreement, but it is beginning to reclaim the limelight.  The leading player is Germany; this week the COP welcomed the news from Germany that they are reducing coal emissions, and that the German energy supplier, E. ON, is switching to a focus on renewables.

Meanwhile, the call from the Developing Nations and environmental groups is for 100% renewable energies by 2050, making moving away from fossil fuels, especially coal, a priority. On the first day of the COP, Christiana Figueres warned that there are risks associated with continued investment in oil and fossil fuels.  Investors are beginning to pay attention, and are worried about an economic crash as fossil fuel companies lose value.  Once again, it seems to be a question of risk: are the risks of economic hardship greater than the risks associated with continuing climate change? 

What leadership looks like

There is typically more controversy and conflict than progress at the annual U.N. climate conferences.  Sometimes, the controversy can surround the choice of host country; for example, last year, COP18 was held in the oil-rich country of Qatar.  The 19th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 19) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw has been no exception in terms of controversy. 

As noted in an earlier post ("Oil and Gas-loving Qatar and now Coal-Dependent Poland Hosts of COP"), Poland relies heavily on coal as an energy source and the Polish prime minister has stated that “hard coal and lignite -- and soon shale gas -- will remain our principal energy sources. That's where the future of the energy sector lies.” Several sponsorships of COP19 had links to the fossil fuel industry.  Warsaw even chose to co-host the International Coal and Climate Summit (ICCS), at a time that coincided with COP19.

Many were upset by this odd juxtaposition of events, both of which appeared to be equally welcomed in the city.  For many, even more perplexing was that UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres had agreed to speak at this Coal Summit.  Perhaps the greatest frustration was expressed by the UNFCCC’s youth constituent, YOUNGO, which decided to send Ms. Figueres an open letter forcing a choice of attending either their Global Climate Youth Meeting or the Coal Summit.  The Executive Secretary chose to attend the latter.  The frustration of the youth is clearly evident in some of the social media updates from last week (for example, see references 1-3 below).

The ultimatum send by the youth and the fact that some of them walked out on Ms. Figueres when she attended the Inter-generational Inquiry held later in the first week of COP19 were, to me, both understandable and disappointing.  I admire the passion and activism of the international youth that I have witnessed at COP meetings over the past five years -- far more engagement than I see from most of my students on environmental or social issues.  Many of these youth will likely be future leaders in climate policy development and activism.  However, I don't approve of the youth that rudely walked out of the inter-generational event when the Executive Secretary was speaking, especially if you have ever heard the heart-felt comments and support that Ms. Figueres has previously provided to the youth -- the generation that will likely feel the full brunt of climate change.  I think that this was recognized by some (see here).

I would hope that the YOUNGO members can understand why it might be important for the Executive Secretariat to speak to the coal industry.  Indeed, Ms. Figueres argued that it was important to confront the enemy, if you will, rather than to ignore their existence.  I agree with her, but realize that it isn't always easy to stand up to those who have a different world view.

Christiana Figueres did speak at the Coal Summit this week, and the text of her speech was widely distributed.  It is worth reading, so I have copied the text verbatim below.  Her comments confirm my observations over the past five years that Ms. Figueres is an extremely intelligent, brave, articulate, and diplomatic leader.  And added plus (from my perspective) is her understanding of science, and willingness to use it as ammunition in her efforts to address the global climate change issue.  I am not certain that I could have stood up to the coal industry in this manner, but I applaud the Executive Secretary for doing so.

And maybe, just maybe, having these international summits coincide in time and location is having an unexpected result.  Just this morning in Warsaw, the UK climate secretary Ed Davey announced that the UK would join other countries and large financial institutions in ending international financing for coal projects (4).

*****

Full speech by UN climate chief Christiana Figueres to World Climate and Coal summit in Warsaw

Your Excellency, Mr. Deputy Prime Minister, Honourable Member of the European Parliament, Distinguished Chair of the World Coal Association, Ladies and Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to address the International Coal and Climate Summit in a frank and honest exchange on the transition to a low-emission economy.

Let me be clear from the outset that my joining you today is neither a tacit approval of coal use, nor a call for the immediate disappearance of coal. But I am here to say that coal must change rapidly and dramatically for everyone’s sake.

There are some who, deeply concerned about the devastating effects of climate change already felt by vulnerable populations around the world, are calling for the immediate shut down of all coal plants. There are others who think that coal does not have to change at all, that we can continue to extract and burn as we have done in the past.

The first view does not take into account the immediate needs of nations looking to provide reliable energy to rapidly growing populations in pursuit of economic development and poverty eradication. The second view does not take into account the immediate need for climate stability on this planet, necessary for the wellbeing of present and future generations.

Today I want to set out an alternative path that is admittedly not easy, but is undoubtedly necessary. That path must acknowledge the past, consider the present and chart a path towards an acceptable future for all. I join you today to discuss this path for two reasons. First, the energy sector is an intrinsic component of a sustainable future. And second, the coal industry must change and you are decision makers who have the knowledge and power to change the way the world uses coal.

The path forward begins in the past, recognizing that coal played a key role in the history of our economic development. From heating to transportation to the provision of electricity, coal has undoubtedly enabled much of our progress over the last 200 years. Coal was at the heart of the developed world’s Industrial Revolution and brought affordable energy to the developing world.

However, while society has benefitted from coal-fuelled development, we now know there is an unacceptably high cost to human and environmental health. The science is clear. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report outlines our predicament. We are at unprecedented GHG concentrations in the atmosphere; our carbon budget is half spent. If we continue to meet energy needs as we have in the past, we will overshoot the internationally agreed goal to limit warming to less than two degree Celsius.

AR5 is not science fiction, it is science fact. AR5 is the overwhelming consensus of 200 lead authors synthesizing the work of 600 scientists who analysed 9000 peer-reviewed publications. AR5 is arguably the most rigorous scientific report ever written. And, the findings of the AR5 have been endorsed by 195 governments, including all of those in which you operate.

There is no doubt that the science is a clarion call for the rapid transformation of the coal industry. Just this morning, more than 25 leading climate and energy scientists from around the world released a clear statement about the need to radically rethink coal’s place in our energy mix.

Considering that coal energy loads the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses, competes for water and impacts public health, the call of science has already been answered by a wide gamut of stakeholders: Students, faith-based organizations and citizens are asking their investment managers to divest from coal and other fossil fuels. Cities choked by air pollution are limiting the burning of coal. Development banks have stopped funding unabated coal.

Commercial financial institutions are analysing the implications of unburnable carbon for their investment strategies. Pricing of GHG emissions is on the rise, evidenced by trading markets coming online around the globe. And, international policy is moving us toward a global low-emission economy. All of this tells me that the coal industry faces a business continuation risk that you can no longer afford to ignore.

Like any other industry, you have a fiduciary responsibility to your workforce and your shareholders. Like any other industry, you are subject to the major political, economic and social shifts of our time. And by now it should be abundantly clear that further capital expenditures on coal can go ahead only if they are compatible with the two degree Celsius limit.

Ladies and gentlemen, the coal industry has the opportunity to be part of the worldwide climate solution by responding proactively to the current paradigm shift. It would be presumptuous of me to put forward a transition plan for coal as you are the repositories of knowledge and experience, and the assets you manage are at stake.

But there are some fundamental parameters of this transition:

• Close all existing subcritical plants;
• Implement safe CCUS on all new plants, even the most efficient;
• Leave most existing reserves in the ground.

These are not marginal or trivial changes, these are transformations that go to the core of the coal industry, and many will say it simply cannot be done. But the phrase “where there’s a will, there’s a way” is tantamount to human history because will precedes innovation, and innovation precedes transformation. John F. Kennedy called for putting man on the moon in ten years at a point when no one knew how that would be done.

We must transform coal with the same determination, the same perseverance, the same will. We must be confident that if we set an ambitious course to low-emissions, science and technology will rapidly transform systems. Above all, you must invest in this potential, because the coal industry has the most to gain by leveraging the existing capital, knowledge and capacity to transform itself. The world is rising to meet the climate challenge as risks of inaction mount, and it is in your best interest to make coal part of the solution. These radical changes have the transformative power to bring coal in line with the direction in which society is moving.

I urge every coal company to honestly assess the financial risks of business as usual; anticipate increasing regulation, growing finance restrictions and diminishing public acceptance; and leverage technology to reduce emissions across the entire coal value chain. You are here today as coal industry leaders, but you can also understand yourselves as long-term energy supply leaders. Some major oil, gas and energy technology companies are already investing in renewables, and I urge those of you who have not yet started to join them.

By diversifying your portfolio beyond coal, you too can produce clean energy that reduces pollution, enhances public health, increases energy security and creates new jobs. By diversifying beyond coal, you reduce the risk of stranded assets and make yourselves ready to reap the rewards of a green economy. By diversifying beyond coal, you can deploy your disciplined, courageous and technically skilled workforce into new renewable energy jobs, transforming your companies from within.

The Warsaw Communique is a first step for change because it shows:

• That the Association accepts climate change as a development risk; and
• That lower coal emissions is an aspirational and realizable goal.

The communique is a first step, but it cannot be the last. I invite you to use this Climate and Coal Summit to decide how you are going to step up to the challenge of contributing to real climate change solutions. We must urgently take the steps that put us on an ambitious path to global peaking by the end of this decade, and zero-net emissions by the second half of the century.

Steps that look past next quarter’s bottom line and see next generation’s bottom line, and steps to figure health, security and sustainability into the bottom line. For it will be your children and my children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren who will look back at today and judge our collective commitment to them.

They must be able to look back and recognize this summit as a historic turning point for the coal industry.

1. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/11/13/18746315.php
2. http://www.ecosprinter.eu/blog/letter-of-cop-19-fyeg-delegates-to-youth-first-update/
3. http://www.earthinbrackets.org/2013/11/12/as-christiana-figueres-gears-up-for-coal-summit-youngos-response-letter/
4. http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2013/11/falling-like-dominoes-support-for-coal-from-the-uk-comes-to-an-end.html

A recap of COP18

What was hoped for in Doha?  What was accomplished?

Early on in Qatar, we didn’t yet have a good sense about what would or wouldn’t happen at the high-level negotiations this time around – a full two decades after the development of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.  However, there was growing consensus on a wish list of outcomes being discussed over coffee and in the hallways, showing up in NGO publications being distributed at the convention center, and in various online blog posts.  Since I now have some time between semesters to reflect on the conference and read details of the Doha agreement and several analyses, I will summarize the outcomes for a few of the key issues from that wish list.

Keeping the U.S. engaged in the UNFCCC process:

A little over a week before COP18 commenced, The Guardian reported that the U.S. was considering shifting climate change policy discussions into the Major Economies Forum (MEF).[1]  In reality, that shift had already begun.  Formed in March, 2009, the MEF is comprised of 17 countries and “…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 annual UN climate negotiations, and advance the exploration of concrete initiatives and joint ventures that increase the supply of clean energy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”[2]  I was surprised to learn that dialog amongst the MEF members actually began under the Bush Administration through the Major Economies Meetings on Energy Security and Climate Change.[3]

While many see the MEF as an attempt to undermine or circumvent the UNFCCC process, the countries represented account for about 85% of the global greenhouse gas emissions.  Significantly, the U.S., China, and India – none of which are parties to the Kyoto Protocol – are at the MEF table.  Many countries look to the U.S. for leadership in forging a global long-term agreement aimed at significantly reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, contributing to innovative new technologies, and providing funds for adaptation.  Thus, they also hope that the U.S. will continue to work within the U.N. framework for negotiations instead of initiating a parallel (or rival) track of multilateral discussions with only select countries.  Some of the concerns about the MEF process are discussed in The Guardian article (see reference 1).  Interestingly, the UNFCCC process of operating by consensus has been formally challenged at the last to COP meetings.[4]  The author of article in The Guardian, Arthur Neslen, noted that this alternative forum could “demote the UNFCCC to a forum for discussing the monitoring, reporting and verification of emissions reductions projects.”  But the reliance on consensus of all UNFCCC parties has been a significant hurdle in developing formal agreements that would yield the type of policy changes needed to address global climate instability and its associated problems.

The term “demote” used by Mr. Neslen is a strong word to choose, and his remark focuses only on mitigation.  There were other key issues on the table at COP18 (and previous COP meetings) that are also within the U.N. framework including adaptation, promoting sustainable development with low-carbon/green technologies, and compensation for loss and damage related to climate change.   Not surprisingly, the question of who is liable for past emissions and the concomitant problems these greenhouse gases can cause around the planet is one that is more likely to be a U.N. issue than an MEF one. 

Financing “clean” development and adaptation:

We already have seen that the developed and wealthiest nations have been slow to contribute to the climate finance fund (Fast Track Finance) agreed to at the 2009 climate conference (COP15) in Copenhagen.  By May of 2012, less than 80% of the $30 billion goal had been met, and the U.S. and European Union, both major economies participating in MEF, had committed half or less than half of their fair share.[5]  Only about one-fifth of this amount supports adaptation in developing countries, despite the major emphasis on adaptation-related topics in Doha (a sign of the acceptance of the lack of timely progress in the negotiations process).   And despite the agreements, much of these funds are in the form of loans rather than debt-free grants, and only about one-third of the contributions represented actual new money. 

Despite the underwhelming record on Fast Track Finance, there was hope that COP18 would yield increased financial contributions and commitments for the Green Climate Fund and Technology Mechanism, but again, little progress was made.  This concept was developed at COP16 in Cancun and some details about the funding mechanism clarified in Durban last year.  The goal for this adaptation fund is to have $100 billion contributed per year beginning in 2020.  A bit more than $10 million was committed for operational costs and some logistics of managing the fund were discussed, but questions and inconsistencies related to measuring, tracking, and reporting climate finance remain unresolved.  A major concern is that the Fast Track Finance program expired at the end of 2012, and there is no clear plan for interim funding over the next eight years until the implementation of the Green Climate Fund in 2020.  A few countries did agree to continue to provide some financing for developing nations through 2015. 

Extreme weather events in 2012 in the U.S. alone provide stark reminders that the dollar amounts discussed for adaptation (or used as reasons for not reducing greenhouse gas emissions) pale in comparison to current and future costs of loss and damage resulting from storms, droughts, fires, and other such events.  In late November, New York alerted Washington that it needs over $33 billion for damages and cleanup from Hurricane Sandy and $9 billion for adaptation to protect transportation systems, the power grid, and sewage and water supplies when future storms strike.  New Jersey’s needs are likely to be around $29 billion.[6]   And this price tag of over $70 billion represents only two of the states that were impacted by the historic storm.  As of January 9^th (more than 2 months after Hurricane Sandy), only $9.7 billion in aid has been approved by Congress. 

A short news piece from New Year’s Eve indicated that there were 11 weather/climate disasters in 2012 in the U.S.[7]  This number seems low given the recent winter storms that spawned record numbers of December tornadoes in many different southern states, but regardless, disasters in 2012 other than Hurricane Sandy and the extreme drought in the Midwest cost the country more than a billion dollars.  And this doesn’t begin to put a price on suffering and loss of human life.  Predictions are that the costs for disasters will continue to climb as discussed in an earlier post.[8]  The price mechanisms for fossil fuel extraction, processing and use do not take into account the full social and environmental costs of these operations.  The COP18 discussions on loss and damage perhaps represent small steps in putting such externalities on the negotiations table.   Not surprisingly, the U.S. is strongly opposed to compensation for climate change-related loss and damage, and in Doha, reportedly blocked all language that implied compensation or liability.[9]

Keeping the Kyoto Protocol alive:

The Kyoto Protocol is the only existing legally binding international agreement pertaining to climate change policy.  Going into COP18, there was particular concern given to this agreement given that the first commitment period would expire at the end of 2012.  Civil society wanted foremost a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, but also an agreement that included more aggressive GHG emission reduction targets, would remove loopholes, and included all developed countries.

According to UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres:

A key achievement of COP 18 was the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. This means that the important accounting and environmental rules of the only existing international, legally-binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are preserved. [10]

Indeed, a second commitment period (KP2) was agreed to; however, the key parties that signed on to this only contribute 15% of global emissions.  Canada, Japan, Russia, and New Zealand did not recommit to a second period, and of course, the U.S. was not a signatory of the original KP agreement.  China, India, Russia, and Brazil, were not originally designated Annex I countries, so were exempt from the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets of the original Kyoto Protocol. Given their collective contribution to carbon emissions and their growing population and economies, omission of these countries has been a particular point of contention for the United States.

The non-KP2 parties can participate in Clean Development Mechanisms, but cannot trade “units” or emission allowances within KP programs.  The 2012 agreement features an “ambition trigger, which requests that KP2 Parties revisit and increase their commitments by 2014 (rather than 2015) in line with the 25-40% emissions reductions called for by the IPCC 4th Assessment Report.”[11]  Many feel that the reduction goals should be more aggressive, but were relieved that some form of an international agreement was salvaged in Doha.

Building on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP):

A new negotiated long term agreement that built on the Durban Platform from COP17 was a major goal going into Doha, even though much concern has been expressed that any plan that delays implementation until 2020 is problematic.  A goal of ADP is to limit global temperature increases to less than 2^∘C, but currently models are suggesting that we are tracking toward a 4^∘C increase.  Given the urgency suggested by the latest scientific data, many believe that aggressive mitigation actions are needed now.  In the first post I wrote immediately prior to leaving for Qatar, I mentioned the World Bank report entitled Turn Down the Heat:  Why a 4 Degree Centigrade Warmer World Must be Avoided.[12]  This report, from an unlikely source, was mentioned many times during COP18.

At the end of COP18, two negotiations tracks (working groups) – Kyoto Protocol and the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) – came to an end.  Moving forward, negotiations will now take place within the ADP track.  Later, I note a few perspectives on the overall outcomes of Doha, but for now, I include a comment from the ever-optimistic Christiana Figueres about the progress on the Durban Platform:

Significant groundwork was laid for the universal 2015 agreement that will enter into force in 2020. At the same time, governments agreed to work intensively to find ways to curb emissions before 2020, which is crucial for the world to be able to stay below the agreed maximum 2°C temperature rise. ….Much work remains to be done, but the conference achieved what it set out to do. Now it is a matter of accelerating the pace of climate action on the part of governments and by all of society.[13]

The fate of forests and oceans:

Over the past four years, I have been surprised at the relative lack of consideration of the ecological impact of climate change at COP meetings.  Some ecological issues are raised by civil society in side events and at NGO booths in the exhibition halls.  This year, however, the representation from conservation groups was noticeably reduced.  I realize that there are other forums where the focus is on conservation, biodiversity, and the status of the key ecosystems.  But it seems to me that protecting the planet (and not just people and economies) should also be a major part of the discussions on climate change policy. 

The protection of forests is discussed because of their role in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions and because of the carbon sequestration role that they play.  Deforestation is believed to account for somewhere between 15 to 20% of global carbon emissions, thus, the topic of reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) continues to be discussed in negotiations.  But, as with many other topics, the unresolved technical issues and need for clarification of financing programs remain unresolved after Doha.  A major disagreement, that publicly appeared to be between mainly Brazil and Norway, is whether monitoring should be conducted by external groups or by representatives from the country where a forest in a REDD+ program is located.[14]   Interestingly, Norway has spent close to a billion dollars to develop REDD+ as a carbon market mechanism.  As I have written about previously,[15] REDD+ has been controversial, especially for indigenous groups who view carbon markets (i.e. “protection” of their forests as carbon sinks) as a new form of colonialism. 

But as was the case for conservation groups at COP18, there was relatively little representation from the NGOs representing the indigenous voices in Doha.  There was one notable speech on the topic that came from Bolivia’s Minister of Environment and Water, Jose Antonia Zamora Gutierrez:

We denounce to the whole world the pressure from some countries for the approval of new carbon market mechanisms, although these have shown to be ineffective in the fight against climate change, and that only represent business opportunities. This is a climate change conference, not a conference for carbon business. We did not come here to do business with the death of Mother Earth betting on the power of markets as a solution. We are here to protect our Mother Earth, we came here to protect the future of humanity.

Yesterday forests were turned into carbon markets businesses, and the same was done with the land, they tried to oceans and, worse, to agriculture. Agriculture is food security, employment, life, and culture. Agriculture is along with the land, mountains and forests, the house and the food of our indigenous and peasant communities.

We will not allow the replacement of the obligations of developed countries with carbon markets. The planet is not for sale, nor our life.[16]

A slightly more positive post-COP18 spin on the status of REDD+ was written for REDD-Net by Emily Brickell, Senior Research Officer, Forests and Land Use, ODI.[17]

As the Doha negotiations took place, news broke of Norway depositing a further $180 million into Brazil’s Amazon fund in response to a drop in Brazil’s deforestation for the third year running; while the UK, Norway, US, Germany and Australia issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to working together to achieve REDD+. 

She goes on to note that

…there has been increasing recognition of the need to focus on the drivers of deforestation to deliver REDD+ and, with that, recognition that this means looking beyond the “forest sector” to consider forests as part of a wider landscape (as can be seen in the shift from CIFOR’s forests day to the future focus on landscapes). And this shift in thinking reflects the paradigm shift needed in countries to deliver REDD+. Rather than a discrete project with clear boundaries, REDD+ requires a change in mindset about the role of forests and wider land use to meet development needs and achieve environmental sustainability [emphasis added].

Currently, there isn’t a “carbon market” to help focus conversations on the protection of our oceans.  Despite serious concerns related to ocean acidification and the implications of lower pH and higher temperatures in the ocean on species ranging from corals to fish, I saw only one organization in Doha trying to call attention to these matters – the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML).  This organization “undertakes leading international research to respond to societal needs and to promote stewardship of the world ocean.”[18]  The absorption of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and the impacts of climate change are viewed as significant threats to ocean biogeochemical cycles and species that depend on the oceans, including humans.  A major goal of PML is to make science accessible to a wide audience.  The negotiators within the UNFCCC process should take note of their extensive scientific reports, and more importantly, what those reports are telling us.  (A special shout out and thanks to Dr. Carol Turley of PML for all the great materials she provided for me to bring back to my students and her passion and sincere concern for the fate of the oceans.)

Gender balance and gender-smart policies:

I am not sure that headed to Qatar, anyone predicted that so much attention would be focused on women and gender-issues associated with climate change.  I already wrote about the first COP Gender Day and some of the issues of concern, so won’t repeat myself here.[19] But a quick update on what was dubbed the “Doha Miracle” by Christiana Figueres:  the language to strengthen women’s representation within the COP proceedings was adopted.  A good summary of why this is significant has been written by Mary Robinson, whose foundation helped spearhead this initiative.[20]  Having greater participation of women in the negotiations process is a significant step in developing gender-smart policy decisions that impact the people who aren’t in the air-conditioned convention centers negotiating the climate change issues.

Moving forward?

As always seems to be the case after a COP meeting, there is much discussion amongst analysts and within civil society circles as to the future of the UNFCCC process.  While little coverage of the conference appeared in the U.S. media, commentary appearing in international outlets was rather negative.  One representative comment came from an opinion piece in Outreach Magazine published by the Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future: “The Doha package is not controversial as it is devoid of content.”[21]  A rather realistic assessment of the process did appear in what I refer to as the “alternative press” from this country; in Yes magazine, Jim Schultz noted that

“A truly binding commitment on carbon emissions would require that the major carbon polluting countries in the world—the United States, China, India, and others – effectively surrender some measure of their sovereignty (over energy policy, for example).  To believe that they will ever do so is, unfortunately, a fantasy.”[22]  

However, on a more optimistic note, he also discusses the “importance of moving these fights to the fields of battle where citizen action stands the best chance of winning.”  It is on these local fronts that we must continue to work – be it through education, pressure on politicians, or activism of other forms.  And despite frustration with the lack of progress, I agree with Christiana Figueres when she says that the UNFCCC process, while not perfect, is the best we have.  And so I will continue to be a voice calling for action to address climate change and to support a multilateral negotiations process through the United Nations that addresses mitigation, adaptation, and financial and technical assistance to the poor and still-developing nations.  How else can we begin to consider a sustainable future? 

Oh, and yes, I plan to be at COP19 next fall in Warsaw.

---

[1] Neslen, A. “US considers shifting climate negotiations away from UN track”, The Guardian, 16 November 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/16/us-considers-climate-negotiations-un>.

[2] See: http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/about.html.

[3] See http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070927.html .

[4] Kemp, L. “Victory Through Voting?  The Possibility of Majority Voting Within the UNFCCC”, Outreach Magazine, available at:  http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1326-victory-through-voting-the-possibility-of-majority-voting-within-the-unfccc.

[5] International Institute for Environment and Development Briefing (November 2012) The Eight Unmet Promises of Fast-Start Climate Finance, available at http://pubs.iied.org/17141IIED.html.

[6] New York Times editorial, “Hurricane Sandy’s Rising Costs”, 27 November 2012; available at

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/opinion/hurricane-sandys-rising-costs.html.

[7] WFMY News 2 “Hurricane Sandy and Extreme Drought Drives Disaster Cost” 31 December 2012 available at http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/261343/57/US-Sustains-Eleven-Billion-Dollar-Disasters-In-2012.

[8] “The Cost of Inaction” 6 December 2012. <http://moraviancollegeatunfccc.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-cost-of-inaction.html>

[9] Leahy, S. “Doha Climate Summit Ends With No New CO₂ Cuts or Funding” Interpress Service, republished in Nation of Change on 6 January 2013; available at http://www.nationofchange.org/doha-climate-summit-ends-no-new-co2-cuts-or-funding-1355151591.

[10] Profile: Christiana Figueres, Interview in Outreach Magazine, December 2012.

<http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1320-cop18-wrap-up-item2 >

[11] http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1319-reflections-on-cop-18-in-doha-negotiators-made-only-incremental-progress.

[12] Available at http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf.

[13] Profile: Christiana Figueres, Interview in Outreach Magazine, December 2012.

<http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1320-cop18-wrap-up-item2 >

[14] Smith, T. “What Next for REDD+ Following Doha Disappointment?” 21 December 2012, RTCC.

 < http://www.rtcc.org/what-next-for-redd-following-doha-disappointment/>

[15] See:  http://moraviancollegeatunfccc.blogspot.com/2010/12/voices-of-indigenous-peoples-at-cop16.html .

[16] You can find the minister’s entire address to the COP18 delegation at  http://boliviarising.blogspot.ca/2012/12/bolivias-address-to-un-climate-talks.html.

[17] See: http://reddnetblog.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/a-paradigm-shift-in-thinking-on-redd/.

[18] See http://www.pml.ac.uk/.

[19] See http://moraviancollegeatunfccc.blogspot.com/2012/12/gender-equity-do-we-want-to-be-equals.html.

[20]Robinson, M.  “Lessons from a Gender COP”, Outreach Magazine, December 2012

< http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1321-lessons-from-a-gender-cop>

[21] Martín Murillo, L., “Doha COP 18: another example of lack of responsibility”, Outreach Magazine, December 2012

<http://www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/index.php/component/content/article/167-cop18-wrap-up/1327-doha-cop-18-another-example-of-lack-of-responsibility>

[22] Schultz, J. “Why Curbing the Climate Crisis Will Take More Than Summits and Divestment” 15 December 2012 op-ed in Yes Magazine, reprinted in Nation of Change; available at http://www.nationofchange.org/why-curbing-climate-crisis-will-take-more-summits-and-divestment-1355587077.

Gender equity: Do we want to be equals on a sinking ship?

It has ended up being a much busier week than usual for me at a COP meeting.  Exhaustion, along with frequent internet disruptions at the hotel, has led to a lapse in my blogging.  I just returned from the last activities of the Convention Center for week 1 (for me anyway), so will now turn my attention to catching up on sharing some of the stories from the Conference.

The Qatar National Conventional Center

One of the QNCC's long hallways

In an earlier post, I referred to the first COP Gender Day -- an official declaration by the UNFCCC Secretariat.  The term “gender equity” first gained attention at COP17 in Durban last year, and the first-ever gender-picnic was held.  At COP 7 in Marrakesh, a decision (36/CP.7) was formalized to “improve the participation of women in the representation of Parties in bodies established under the Convention of the Kyoto Protocol.”  Progress has been made, but there has been growing research verifying that women are disproportionately disadvantaged, especially in developing countries (or the Global South) when it comes to the negative impacts of climate change.  Additionally, one outcome of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development was the “recognition of women’s leadership and their vital role in achieving sustainable development.”[1]  Given that the past three COP presidents have been females, as is the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, it is not surprising that the issue of gender equity has been brought to the forefront of international climate dialog.  What is surprising to many is that this has become such a predominant issue at a COP meeting held in the Middle East.

The COP18 President and some members of the delegation from Qatar

Gender Day at COP18 was filled with panels, the launch of a book about women adapting to climate change (mentioned in one of my previous posts[2]), receptions, and celebrations.  I am not one to typically engage in events focused solely on women’s issues, but out of admiration for political challenges that had been faced by the past 3 COP presidents (all female), and especially for Executive Secretariat Christiana Figueres (who continues to amaze me with her brilliance, diplomacy, and grace under pressure), I decided to attend the book launch.  This event also featured the COP18 and 19 presidents, the Executive Secretariat, and Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland (1990-1997).  Ms. Robinson (“Mama Mary” as she was affectionately referred to during the session) has worked endlessly on behalf of human rights through the United Nations as High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 – 2002) and now, as founder and board chair of the Mary Robinson Foundation: Climate Justice. 

  

I was pleased that much of the discussion focused on gender-smart policies — sound decisions that would have positive impact on all people.  In other words, this gender-related event didn’t just refer to women as such events usually do.  Granted, there was talk about the unique perspectives women can bring to the table when empowered as leaders and their very important roles in homes and communities.  Phrases like “enablers of food security”, “effective decision makers” in homes and on the world stage, and “fountains of knowledge” – both traditional and learned through formal education – were used.  The roles of women as avenues for facilitating and scaling up innovative forms of adaptation were discussed.  Examples were given of how women weren’t waiting for policy to be agreed upon by governments, but rather, they were marching in and doing what needed to be done “whether or not they had heard of COP18 or even climate change.” We were cautioned about the power of language that sometimes says unintended things; in particular, concern was expressed about how often people refer to women as being “vulnerable” to or “victims” of climate change.  I ended up staying for several of the events.

Cecelia from Kenya whose work in climate adaptation was noted by Mary Robinson

 

The artist's statement for the large spider sculpture in the QNCC

All panelists seemed to agree that we need to change the narrative “to put more humanity in our hearts so that we can change the situation”, to put a human face on climate change – both its impacts and opportunities.  In other words, policy makers need to understand the urgency as indicated by the science, but they also need to be aware of the climate-related predicaments people are faced with daily around the globe.   I recently read an op-ed that said we should drag all the Parties (negotiators) out for a walk in nature (I wish I could find this piece again).  There were several references to the disconnect between Party delegates sitting in air-conditioned convention centers making policy decisions and the people whose lives and livelihoods these policies impact. Most importantly, it was stressed that we we can’t just focus on the doom and gloom stories; Secretariat Figueres cautioned that these types of stories are not inspiring and won’t “take people to the next step of innovative solutions.”

This was not a day of angry feminism, but rather one that led to a strong a call for on-the-ground support for real people — men and women— and a call to maximize the potential of all in adapting to and helping to solve the challenge of climate change. One slogan of the conference is “7 Billion People.  One Challenge.”  How appropriate.

On November 29^th, the secretariat received a proposal from the European Union which is now titled Draft decision [-/CP.18] “Promoting gender equality and improving participation of women in UNFCCC negotiations and in the representation of Parties in bodies established pursuant to the Convention or the Kyoto Protocol.”[3]  That title reflects a lot of COP jargon that essentially translates to a proposal to advance the goals of gender balance and gender-sensitive (or gender-smart) climate policy.  The Subsidiary Body for Implementation or SBI will have to finalize language on this tonight (December 1^st) and vote to move this to be formally adopted by the Conference of the Parties (more jargon, I know).  But this might very well be one of the first agreements coming out of COP18.

 

Sunset in Doha

---

[1] The Future We Want, outcome document of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, adopted on 12 June 2012 (United Nationals General Assembly resolution A/RES/66/288. paragraph 237).  See also the focus on women in the U.N. Millennium Development Goals at http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.

[2]See http://moraviancollegeatunfccc.blogspot.com/2012/11/just-typical-day-at-cop-meeting.html.

[3] Available at http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600007222 .