Science Should Inform Policy - But Politics Can Get in the Way

I noted in my first post for COP23 that I would reflect on what has changed since Moravian first attended a U.N. climate conference in 2009. One thing that has changed is the increase in climate science and in certainty ascribed to the implications of what the data are telling us (i.e., the confidence that scientists have in the data and models). At the time of COP15, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC had released its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) and one of the summary findings was: 

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

Now, at COP23, the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) has now been out for 3 years and in this report, the language was a bit stronger:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Last Friday (03 November 2017), despite the climate change denial of the current administration in the White House and much uncertainty about whether the release would occur, 13 federal agencies unveiled the findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in Climate Science – the 4th National Climate Assessment Report (NCA4) The format of this report has many analogies to the IPCC report, but is focused on U.S. science and impacts. Here is their statement about what is happening:

Since NCA3, stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean. This report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

And in more detail:

The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence). These trends are consistent with expected physical responses to a warming climate. Climate model studies are also consistent with these trends, although models tend to underestimate the observed trends, especially for the increase in extreme precipitation events (very high confidence for temperature, high confidence for extreme precipitation). The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases (high confidence). Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence).

• Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence).

• Increases of about 2.5°F (1.4°C) are projected for the period 2021–2050 relative to 1976–2005 in all RCP scenarios, implying recent record-setting years may be “common” in the next few decades (high confidence).

This report was covered by USA Today and the New York Times. One particular piece of data from the NY Times piece caught my attention: 

A report from 13 federal agencies says extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980.

It wasn't clear as to whether the economic impact of this year's three hurricanes were factored into that price tag. But what is clear, is that each year and with each additional COP, the costs of loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change are rising.

Science in reports such as those from the IPCC has driven action and policy development at the international level. In fact, the first report of the IPCC directly led to the creation of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the reason we have COP meetings each year. As the evidence builds, words such as "urgency" and "ambition" are routinely heard around the halls here in Bonn, although negotiations are still slow in resulting in implementation of specific actions that would actually make a difference in this global challenge. The science was beginning to inform policy in the U.S. under the Obama Administration, but alas, exactly one year ago, at COP22, we watched the election results come in and new that things would change.

Again, from the NY Times article:

"This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

Relatively little reaction came out of the White House last Friday except for one statement:

“The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

Note the careful insertion of the word "uncertainty" in this statement. So as scientists grow increasingly confident in terms of the impacts and causes of climate change, we have an administration in the U.S. that prefers to cast doubt; attempt to break international agreements; silence, and in some cases, replace scientists; and scrub websites (e.g. of the EPA) of references to climate change.

In stark contrast, here in Bonn, scientists, activists, and other non-state actors, were invited to an open dialog today with the Parties who are negotiating the details of how to implement the Paris Agreement. From country after country, we heard about examples of national climate teams and consultations where scientists and politicians come together with indigenous peoples, representatives from the business community, and other stakeholders to discuss climate policy and action. Such dialogs alone won't immediately "solve" climate change but having everyone in the same room having productive discussions about the way forward is a much better approach than silencing the scientists and ignoring the data.

The "Mood Change" Caused by the United States' Decision About the Paris Agreement

Day one of COP23 has concluded, and already so much taken place. Upon arrival, I was surely not alone in being curious about how other countries will respond to the recent decision made by the Trump Administration about withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. We all know that President Trump is a huge advocate for coal and oil industries, but taking the United States out of the Paris Agreement has proved to be a bit rash. The Paris Agreement is an initiative that allows countries to come to a consensus about what action each individual country needs to take in order to reduce global emissions. In the words of the COP22 president pertaining to this agreement, "Look into the future, we need to act fast...no need for show of force, we only need to show commitment for future action." This statement was made during the opening ceremony at COP23, and set the tone for the rest of the conference.


The Paris Agreement offers a joint vision for all those involved. However, for this vision to be effective, all countries that are a part of the agreement must show their support and focus toward the goal. During a press conference that my colleagues and I attended -- Diffused Leadership and The Paris Agreement: The India Story -- we heard the insight from members of the CEEW (Council on Energy, Environment and Water) about their thoughts about the U.S and the action taken concerning the Paris Agreement. This was the "India Story" because as one of the larger contributors to carbon emissions, along with China and America, the withdraw made by the U.S. is quite concerning. Even if India and China dramatically released their carbon emissions to practically nothing, if the U.S. doesn't take any action to reduce emissions, the goal of keeping global temperatures below 2 degrees will be next to impossible. Thus, the lack of action that might be taken by America is troubling to other large powers such as India and China. The CEO of CEEW, Arunabha Ghosh stated, "after the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Agreement, there has been a mood change in Bonn." After which, I asked the question, what is this 'mood change' that you are referring to exactly? (refer to 9:35 in video link) Ghosh responded by explaining how since the United States is such a large power, the choice to withdraw has created a lack of trust. The Paris Agreement must be an enforceable agreement with no loose ends, this means that each country has confidence in the other cosigners in regards to holding true to the pledge of taking action towards mitigating climate change. On a lighter note, although the U.S. has withdrawn, individual states and cities in America have held true to their pledge and still honor the agreement. This gives hope that even though the federal government may have made a poor decision, there is still a chance that small local governments can honor the pledge that the United States originally made when signing the Paris Agreement at COP21.

A tale of two leaders

Before heading to Bonn, I had a lot of people ask me about the status of the Paris Agreement and wonder what the attitudes towards the U.S. would be at the climate conference this year. As I was walking into the venue this morning - Day 1 of COP23 - I was handed a copy of the ECO - NGO daily newsletter which contained an article on this topic. The opening lines tell it all:

As COP23 begins, there is a large (orange) elephant in the room. The Trump Administration has made the US the only country that has fully rebuffed the spirit of Paris -- not only with threats of withdrawal but also renewed pledges to ramp up extraction of fossil fuels and that's not all. While the Administration is abandoning all sense of reason to eliminate climate policy....  

You get the idea. And this was one of the "nicer" comments I read/heard.

So in response I will focus on another leader. Fiji is technically the host of COP23, but for logistical reasons, couldn't bring all the delegates to their tiny country. Their presidency (for COP for the year) and the cultural influences of the island nation are obvious throughout the venue with many references to islands, the extreme weather events resulting, in part, from warmer oceans, music, and photos and quotes from people of the country speaking about how climate change is impacting them. Fiji Prime Minister Bainimarama noted that when it comes to climate change we are all in the same canoe.

This vessel greats delegates as they enter the Bula Zone of COP23

Destination: COP 23

I am at the airport awaiting my flight to Bonn, Germany to attend the annual U.N. climate conference – COP23. This will be my 9th such trip having first attended COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, and I find myself reflecting upon what has changed over that time span.

As a refresher, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was one of three treaties to come out of the Rio Earth Summit held in 1992. The framework was enacted in 1994, and the first Conference of the Parties or COP1 was held in 1995. Parties are the signatories to the agreement -- the nations working to find ways to mitigate the problem (largely by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.

When Moravian College delegates attended COP15, the sense of optimism was unmistakable; with a new administration in the White House, many felt that the shift in priorities and perspectives would finally result in progress towards developing a new significant international agreement on climate change. Despite that optimism, it would take until 2015 in Paris for that agreement to finally happen. And then, one year later, the results of the U.S. election came in while we were attending COP22 in Marrakech. The mood immediately shifted from excitement about working on implementation of the Paris Agreement to a gloomy sense of a new uncertainty. Despite decades of scientific data telling policymakers what should be done, it was immediately obvious that politics of just one country – mine – can quickly overshadow all the will and hard work to address such a global challenge.

If my experience at the Community-based Adaptation Conference in Uganda this summer is any indication, any delegate from the U.S. attending COP23 will face difficult questions, frustration, criticism, and even anger about the anti-climate change rhetoric and lack of cooperation on implementing the provisions of the Paris Agreement coming from the U.S.

The news is not all discouraging. The #WeAreStillIn initiative of U.S. cities, corporations and institutions of higher education (including Moravian College), the dramatic global progress being made in switching to renewable, non-carbon based energy sources, and the innovations occurring in technology, companies, and other countries – rich and poor alike – are all signs of hope.

Here in the terminal, as I chat with the students who are part of our delegation this year, I can’t help but notice their enthusiasm. Of course, they are excited to be traveling to a new country, but they are also eager to participate in COP23 and share stories through our blog to those back home. For four years, they have been studying environmental issues – the science and policy – and now, they will get to participate in the nexus between the two at the international level. They understand the severity and urgency associated with the challenge of climate change. They are frustrated by the climate denial and inaction in the U.S. Yet, they, like my own sons who are about the same age, are not without hope that we can still make a difference at the local and global level to address this challenge.

The UNFCCC process has its flaws. It is complex and slow. But 197 nations agreed to the provisions of the Paris Agreement. Think about that: 197 countries in agreement about something. As of this week, 86% of those countries have ratified that agreement through their own internal processes. The Paris Agreement opened the door to the private sector, cities and sub-national governments across the world to participate and innovate; over the past two years, we are seeing what the U.N. refers to as “game-changing actions.” The agreement sent strong signals to markets -- where to invest and where not to. Faith-based communities across the globe believe that, as stewards of all creation, we have a moral obligation to address climate change. And developing countries are beginning to leapfrog dirty, outdated technologies as they work to raise their standard of living.

This week, I will be sharing my reflections on what has changed during the past nine years since my first COP -- in terms of the scientific understanding, the technology, the policy and politics, the public attitudes and the role that I have played. As we attend COP23, we will all be reporting on the issues and our perceptions on the progress being made toward implementing the Paris Agreement provisions. Hopefully, we will provide some glimmers of optimism along the way.

Nature decrees that we do not exceed the speed of light. All other impossibilities are optional. 

Robert Brault

Thoughts before COP23--Is Denying Climate Change Worth It?

 Climate change has been impacting the planet for quite a while now. In fact, Arrhenius published the first calculation of global warming from human CO2 emissions in 1896. For many people, it is easy to confirm that climate change is a real problem and escalating fast. However, there is a staggering division amongst opinions, especially in the United States. As of 2016, roughly 31% of Americans denied that climate change is due to humans, and 20% deny climate change altogether. So what’s with this gap in popular opinion?

How can people be so skeptical of the changes happening right in front of them?

To some, it’s hard to understand how our peers can be so skeptical of something that is happening right in front of them. The way we view information depends on how we interpret it as well as whether or not we want to take ALL the information into account. Interpreting climate change data can be difficult to anyone who is not familiar with scientific jargon. Some people are intimidated by graphs and charts. This can lead to ignoring information that is clearly displayed, all on the basis of disliking the format or way it was presented. Another issue, when interpreting facts, is how those facts directly impact the person looking at them. Obviously, someone who owns or manages a company which produces high levels of waste and emissions daily does not want to hear about how they are contributing to a “crisis.” In some cases, this is deliberate. Corporations with vested interests have funded a media campaign to cast doubt and nonprofits that have a slick anti-science propaganda. This is well documented in books like Erik Conway's "Merchants of Doubt", or Michael Mann's "Climate Wars." Not only are people misinterpreting, but the general public listens to these misinterpretations, especially when someone who holds a high profile position (ex: legislators, congressmen, actors, etc.) gives an opinion. However, it’s natural for people to interpret or selectively cherry-pick evidence and facts so that their own beliefs are confirmed. This is referred to as a ‘confirmation bias.’ Unfortunately, for many skeptics, climate change data is interpreted in order satisfy their confirmation bias.

 “People are always clinging to what they want to hear, discarding the evidence that doesn’t fit with their beliefs, giving greater weight to evidence that does.” 

― Paula Stokes, The Key to Everything

Media and Politics only amplify denials

Media and politics play a large part in how people view climate change, and can also fuel their skepticism. Everyone knows that the media can twist words and choose what part of the story they want to tell in order to satisfy the public. Climate change is usually not the “juicy” story that people want to watch or read about because the media can over sensationalize the information or event. Major news networks choose to ignore mentioning climate change when extreme weather events take place. For instance, hurricane Irma and Maria devastated the Caribbean, and while scientific data showed a correlation between climate change and extreme weather, many news networks neglected to present that information to the public. Also, media tends to cover politics and the views of different politicians more than it covers the views of scientists; and this can influence skeptic views. Scientists aren’t always inclined to engage with the media at times, but it is easier to listen to the opinion of a high profile politician than it is to researching the data that was collected and confirmed on the matter. When a popular politician makes a statement saying that “global warming is a hoax,” the public fails to remember that this is opinion-based only. It’s very unlikely that every politician who has denied climate change actually did their research in order to confirm this denial; and yet these opinions are exposed through the media over scientific findings.

   

 “People put a lot less effort into picking apart evidence that confirms what they already believe.” 

― Peter Watts, Echopraxia

So how are we supposed to view climate change?

One thing that is not opinion based, or influenced by outside sources is the scientific data pertaining to climate change; over 97% of scientists and researchers are able to come to a consensus that climate change is a very real threat. So what have we learned so far about the changes occurring globally? Last year, we saw average global temperatures break records, and 2016 was the third record breaking year in a row. Along with these temperature rises, CO2 levels are twice as high as normal, threatening the pH balance in the oceans and contributing the diminishing coral reef. We are also seeing sea levels rise faster than ever before-3.4mm a year-threatening many coastal populations over time. This is only some of the information that we are certain about and that raises concern for our future. It’s not solely about “who” you should listen to; it is also about how you should act to help reduce the effects of climate change. We have moved beyond the argument of “right and wrong” because we already have the information to show that our climate is changing, and now it is time to tackle the threat at hand.

"Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start." –Pope Francis

Development of a Gender Action Plan

The Lima Work Programme on Gender established the need for a Gender Action Plan that would promote development of gender-sensitive climate policy and advance gender balance throughout the UNFCCC.  A two-session workshop was held in Bonn to consider and develop possible elements of the Gender Action Plan. 

The workshop was launched by the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Patricia Espinosa, Ambassador Khan of Fiji, and the Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), Tomasz Chruszczow.  Earlier this week Ms. Espinosa became an International Gender Champion and founded the Bonn-Berlin Chapter of the International Gender Champion Network, the aim of which is to advance executive-level gender equality in institutions; Ms. Espinosa will be inviting senior leaders from the public and private sectors to join her in this initiative. Ambassador Khan discussed the Fijian custom of talanoa, which involves telling stories without concealment, and listening and learning as much as speaking; the process helps to build relationships and enables us to learn from each other. Talanoa can be used to ensure the climate policies developed are sound and just for all by listening to and incorporating diverse knowledge and perspectives. Tomasz Chruszczow echoed this sentiment by calling for universal participation and empowerment, and for the needs and voices of women to be incorporated into every aspect of policy.

Co-facilitator of the workshop, Winfred Lichuma, discussed the plan for the day and for the next workshop. At this session, the overall approach was discussed and the breakout groups for the next session decided. The breakout groups will contribute to a report prepared by the Secretariat that will be published on the UNFCCC website before the closing of the SBI.  More information on and from the workshop can be found here: http://unfccc.int/gender_and_climate_change/items/10289.php

Advance comments on the Gender Action Plan were submitted by nine Parties and eleven Observers.  Comments included the need for:

·       capacity building at the international and national levels to effectively incorporate gender;

·       reporting mechanisms, tools and knowledge sharing for enhancing participation of women;

·       training for delegates;

·       establishment of national gender focal points;

·       enhanced gender budgeting that is integrated and not part of a separate work stream;

·       tools for gender-responsive implementation in NDCs;

·       means to ensure effective participation of local, grassroots and indigenous women; and

·       action plans that are concrete, verifiable, and achievable.

Fleur Newman, the gender focal point for UNFCCC, then discussed the need to integrate gender mandates with existing decisions through UNFCCC.  Because the focus of gender mandates, such as increasing participation of women, is often recurring, it should be determined how associated actions might support multiple decisions and mandates. 

Grassroots comments were then provided.  Sasha Middleton, of the Marine Ecosystems Protected Areas Trust of Antigua and Barbuda, said that involving women in environmental policies is the key to successful implementation, and that grassroots women are often the people most affected, so their opinions and priorities should be consulted. Noreen McAteer of the Native Women’s Association of Canada said that participation needs to be funded or it remains an empty promise.  She also discussed the gap between traditional knowledge and knowledge of decision makers, and the gap between men and women’s knowledge and how important it is to build bridges between these gaps at the earliest stages of climate action. 

Pieter Terpstra of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, discussed an informal consultation on Climate and Gender that was held in The Hague in March 2017, and co-organized with Costa Rica and UN Women.  It was discussed that the Gender Action Plan development process could be informed by other established processes, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Green Climate Fund. They suggested a possible format for the Gender Action Plan that would include priority areas, activities, targets and indicators, a timeline, key actors and resources needed.  Priority areas proposed were capacity building and knowledge sharing, gender balance and participation, coherence within UNFCCC and synergy with other UN agencies, gender-responsive implementation, and monitoring and reporting.  These priority areas were agreed upon by the workshop participants and formed the basis for the breakout groups for the second part of the workshop. The summary report generated at the workshop will be posted on the UNFCCC site, presumably with an opportunity for comment before or at the Conference of Parties (COP) in November.

Cities contributing to Nationally Determined Contributions

Cities are establishing their own emission reduction targets and sustainable development initiatives, and these efforts can contribute substantially to Nationally Determined Contributions towards achieving Paris Agreement objectives. Innovative technologies and initiatives by cities will become even more important as urbanization increases, and sharing these innovations is an efficient method for increasing their implementation. 

Singapore seeks to build a smart, sustainable city, and with its limited land space and high urban density, is doing so while incorporating land and resource use efficiencies. Initiatives include mandatory energy labeling and minimum energy performances for appliances in households, and Smart Homes that feature solar panels on rooftops, smart fans that turn on during periods of high humidity or temperatures, and home energy management systems that alert users to changes in energy use. Public-private partnerships support Living Labs that enable researchers to test innovations in real world conditions and using existing infrastructure, and the use of floating solar panels on reservoirs is being explored to increase the use of renewable energy despite limited land area. Singapore also has an Urban Mobility initiative that includes a demand-based public transit system, and an electric vehicle car-sharing program.  

Bonn, Germany has set an ambitious climate target: a 40% reduction in CO₂ emissions by 2020 compared to 1990 levels. Achieving this target will require close cooperation between multiple levels of government (i.e., EU, federal, state) and active participation by stakeholders. Initiatives include renewable energy use in municipal buildings and facilities, renewable energy-enabled grids, a solar roof registry, and an energy agency that provides homeowners advice on retrofits and renewable energy options.  The City also sponsors a Bonn Energy Day to increase public awareness, and a climate ambassadors program for third graders to earn “climate licenses” that come with celebrations and media attention. 

Cities engaged in climate partnerships with their twin cities can also be an effective means of increasing climate change mitigation efforts and sharing best climate practices.  Bonn participates in climate initiatives with its twin cities of La Paz, Bukhara, and Cape Coast.  Another example is Zoersel, Belgium, working closely with its twin city, Bohicon, Benin, on cooperative projects on organic waste treatment, agricultural waste management, and the incorporation of Sustainable Development Goals in local government strategic plans. 

The Rights of the Child

“Those who suffer the most, contribute the least” is an oft-used phrase in climate negotiations.  This can pertain to residents of small island developing states, indigenous peoples, and children. It conveys the urgent need for those most responsible for the climate crisis to act expeditiously and earnestly to reduce the causes and effects of climate change, in part out of moral obligation to reduce the impacts on the most vulnerable of populations that are least to blame.

On the opening day of the UNFCCC meeting, there was a featured event held by the Presidency of the Conference of Parties (COP) 22 on the Rights of the Child. The event highlighted climate change issues affecting children and emphasized how human rights must be incorporated into climate change policy. Children are among the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, including physical and mental distress, loss of opportunities for education, effects of displacement, loss of traditional knowledge, and increased likelihood of exploitation. The event featured testimony from people directly affected and those working on behalf of children. A video was shown featuring a young woman affected by Typhoon Haiyan that hit the Philippines in November of 2013; she conveyed a heart-wrenching story of the loss of her parents and other family members in the flood waters, and the lack of food, water, sanitation and medication afterwards. This was shown as an example of the effects of increased storm intensity already being felt and projected to increase in the future. 

There was a recommendation for all Parties to integrate children’s rights into mitigation and adaptation policy decisions through the UNFCCC and through the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  Suggestions were made to ensure that school and health care facilities are built to withstand storms and sea level rise. There was also a plea to empower children to participate in climate change policymaking through education.

This was an important discussion highlighting our responsibility to younger and future generations. That it was a Presidency Event held in the large Plenary Room highlighted its significance. 

Opening Plenaries at the Bonn Climate Change Conference May 2017

This morning was the Opening Plenary session for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. Most of the Opening Plenary consisted of establishing the working groups and procedures for the rest of the conference; these working groups will focus on various agenda items and have their recommendations ready before the Closing Plenary. Parties to the Conference were able to provide comments on certain agenda items, and there were two main areas of emphasis: the need for transparency in climate finance and accounting (to avoid double counting), and the need to consider indigenous peoples when implementing clean development and adaptation measures. There was also discussion about the need to account for emissions from fuel used for international aviation and maritime transport, and a call for international standards on data collection and a collective strategy for reducing greenhouse gases in this sector. The goal is for a plan by the end of 2018, implemented through the International Maritime Organization. After this discussion, NGOs provided comments, which included concern (and disdain) for agriculture, forestry and other land use offsets, the lack of attention given to food security, and the need to address issues that affect youth, calling for a joint platform by SBSTA and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) to elevate issues that affect youth and indigenous peoples. 

Following the SBSTA was the Opening Plenary for the SBI.  Comments from the Chair, Mr. Tomasz Chruszczow, included that progress made in Paris was irreversible and irrevocable, that we need to demonstrate trust for State and non-State actors, and that we all needed to work together against our biggest competitor: time.

During this opening session, Ambassador Khan of Fiji was introduced.  Fiji will head the next Conference of the Parties (COP) in November in Bonn. Ambassador Khan expressed concern for those in the Pacific facing Cyclone Donna, the worst cyclone on record in May; she cited this cyclone as an example of why Fiji felt compelled to host the next COP.  Fiji has been working with the German government and the UNFCCC to prepare for the COP and welcomes any and all opportunities to engage with interested parties.  The Prime Minister of Fiji will be visiting the conference next week to echo these sentiments. 

The agenda for the next two weeks promises to be full and lively.  I look forward to the progress towards implementing the Paris Agreement.