Evidence suggests that climate change has led to changes in climate extremes such as heat waves, record high temperatures and, in many regions, heavy precipitation in the past half century, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. Climate extremes, or even a series of non-extreme events, in combination with social vulnerabilities and exposure to risks can produce climate-related disasters, the IPCC said in its Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).

While some extreme weather and climate events lead to disasters, others do not. Policies to avoid, prepare for, respond to and recover from the risks of disaster can reduce the impact of these events and increase the resilience of people exposed to extreme events, the IPCC shows in the report.

At the same time, as the IPCC notes in the report, limits to resilience are faced when thresholds or tipping points associated with social and/or natural systems are exceeded, posing severe challenges for adaptation.

“The main message from the report is that we know enough to make good decisions about managing the risks of climate-related disasters. Sometimes we take advantage of this knowledge, but many times we do not,” said Chris Field, Co-Chair of IPCC’s Working Group II, which together with Working Group I produced the report. “The challenge for the future has one dimension focused on improving the knowledge base and one on empowering good decisions, even for those situations where there is lots of uncertainty,” he said.

The IPCC released the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the report in November 2011. The full report released today provides the basis for the key conclusions first presented in the SPM. It offers a greater understanding of the human and economic costs of disasters and the physical and social patterns that cause them. It enables policy-makers to delve into the detailed information behind the findings to examine the material on which the IPCC based its assessments.

Teamwork across disciplines

The report is the outcome of cross-disciplinary teamwork between scientists studying the physical aspects of climate change, scientists with expertise in impacts, adaptation and vulnerability as well as experts in disaster risk management.

“The report integrates these three areas of expertise as an IPCC product which has high policy relevance to countries and communities across the globe,” said R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC.

“The authors assess scientific and technical information from around the world to provide and communicate knowledge on what we know with confidence, as well as identifying areas on which greater scientific evidence is essential to gain deeper understanding,” he said.

The environmental and social factors that influence the risk of disasters vary from region to region, but many of the effective strategies for dealing with disaster risk in a changing climate are similar.

“The most effective measures tend to be those that aid sustainable development, provide a diverse portfolio of options, and represent “low regrets” strategies in the sense that they yield benefits across a wide range of climate futures,” said Field.

The SREX has assessed a wealth of new studies, and new global and regional modelling results that were not available at the time of the Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, its last major assessment of climate change science. Some important conclusions delivered by the SREX therefore include:
- Medium confidence in an observed increase in the length or number of warm spells or heat
waves in many regions of the globe.
– Likely increase in frequency of heavy precipitation events or increase in proportion of total
rainfall from heavy falls over many areas of the globe, in particular in the high latitudes and
tropical regions, and in winter in the northern mid-latitudes.
– Medium confidence in projected increase in duration and intensity of droughts in some regions
of the world, including southern Europe and the Mediterranean region, central Europe, central
North America, Central America and Mexico, northeast Brazil, and southern Africa.

“The SREX provides an unprecedented level of detail regarding observed and expected changes in weather and climate extremes, based on a comprehensive assessment of over 1,000 scientific publications,” said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of Working Group I.

Regional differences

“The report also provides improved differentiation of observed and projected changes in extremes of temperature, precipitation and drought across the continents of the globe,” said Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I.

Some examples include:

- While there is high confidence that heatwaves have become more severe in southern Europe
and the Mediterranean, the scientists have reported less confidence in changes observed in
central and northern Europe.
– Similarly for projected changes in heavy precipitation in Africa, the scientists have assessed
with high confidence that heavy precipitation will increase in East Africa, but report low
confidence in projected changes in southern Africa and the Sahara.
– The assessment of projected changes in dryness across South America indicates medium
confidence that dryness will increase in northeast Brazil, while confidence is low in all other
regions of South America.

Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from climate-related disasters. Furthermore, the assessment indicates that in many regions of the world, socio-economic factors will be among the main drivers of future increases in related losses.

Many countries, including developing countries, face severe challenges in coping with climate-related disasters. For them the report is a rich source of knowledge.

“There are many options currently available that could improve preparation for effective response to extreme climate events and disasters, and enhance recovery from them, said Vicente Barros, the other Co-Chair of Working Group II. “This report identifies lessons learned from extensive experience in disaster risk management and from the growing focus on climate change adaptation.”

SREX will now be presented in the coming weeks to stakeholders around the world. The report’s authors will explain the report in events in developed and developing countries, to scientific experts, to local-scale practitioners and other stakeholders as well as international organizations.

In April and May, the report will be presented to policy-makers in half a dozen locations in Latin America, Asia and Africa, with the support of the Norwegian government and the Climate &
Development Knowledge Network. Events are also planned with UN agencies in Geneva, the policy community in Brussels and the insurance industry in London.

The report’s 592 pages cite thousands of scientific studies and have been subjected to three rounds of review by experts and governments to ensure that the findings are firmly based in the underlying scientific and technical information.

On publication the IPCC will also release earlier drafts of the report that were subject to formal review, comments by expert and government reviewers on those drafts, and responses by the authors to the comments. The IPCC will also publish some material used by the authors from sources other than peer-reviewed journals.

A total of 220 authors from 62 countries worked on the report, for which 18,784 outside expert and government review comments were received in the three rounds of formal review.
“The IPCC is deeply committed to producing reports that are policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive through a transparent process,” Pachauri said.

The report was originally proposed in 2008 by Norway and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

Agriculture and forestry will part-take EU’s climate policies and emission reduction process, according to a proposal issued by the Directorate General for Climate Action.

The proposed new rules will  be submitted to the European Parliament and the European Council, together with an obligation for member states to adopt action plans for greener forestry, soil and agriculture.

A proposal for national emission reduction targets for these sectors is due to be issued later this year.

Forestry and agriculture are the last two major sectors without common European rules, nor specific climate policies.

Efforts to mitigate rural carbon dioxide emissions have only been partly recognized by the EU, due to a lack of common accounting rules and problems associated with robust carbon data collection from forests and soils.

“The proposal will also contribute to protect biodiversity and water resources, support rural development and have a more climate-friendly agriculture,” stated the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

On Poland’s Rebel Stance

”Poland’s no to the European Commission low-carbon Roadmap is unfortunate, but it will not stop Europe from moving on with its transition to a low-carbon economy,” added Hedegaard.

“The bad news was that Poland blocked Council conclusions for the second time. The good and encouraging news is that Poland was the only country to block. The Presidency and the other 26 member states explicitly asked the Commission to move on, and that is what we will do.

The day before the Council the Polish minister signed off an op-ed saying that EU should only have the 2050 reduction objective. How to achieve it should be up to members states themselves as a matter of “subsidiarity”.

Let’s imagine that we said the same about the economic crisis, that the EU defined the economic target for 2050 but how to reach it and whether anything happened in the next 38 years would be an exclusive matter for individual member states. Everyone can see that this wouldn’t work. This is also true when it comes to our climate policies,” she added.

The EU can’t work like this. The EU is a democratic community where negotiations are about give and take to get a good result for all. We can’t move forward if the most reluctant one dictates the pace to the rest.

The Commission’s job is to take care of the common European interest. As late as last week all EU Heads of States and Government urged us to move forward on the low-carbon transition. This is what we will do. There are already a number of proposals from the Commission paving the way, e.g. the energy efficiency directive that the European Council wants to be adopted already in June and the Commission’s budget proposal with an ambitious climate mainstreaming.

Now the Commission will work on further measures needed to reach the cost-efficient milestones that will lead us to a low-carbon future”.

Sergio Zelaya, Coordinator of the Policy Advocacy and Global Issues Unit (PAGI) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Secretariat, answers Karsten Schulz’s questions on the role of social sciences in UNCCD processes, revitalization of the UN body, land management or local governance.

Sergio Zelaya

KS: How do you perceive the role of the social sciences in the UNCCD process? Especially in regard to the view that the natural sciences predominate in programmatic and information sharing processes?

SZ: I think that, from a theoretical point of view, social sciences should play a larger role in the programmatic process of UNCCD implementation. The nature of the text of the convention that was negotiated by Parties twenty years ago reflected the need to include the priority issues on the social and economic fronts that the countries had. And I think, even though the scenario has changed a lot since then, the priorities for the developing countries are still economic development: poverty reduction and economic growth. In addition, one of the objectives of the developed countries in the international community is to provide cooperation for the alleviation of poverty and for sustaining economic growth. So there is a coincidence among the developed and developing countries in regard to the long-term objective of human well-being. In the convention, this is also included theoretically. In practice, it hasn’t been like that. Now, the role of social science in these programmatic processes has been very weak in comparison to the natural sciences. Both of them have been weak. But the weakest is still the role of the social sciences.

KS: My second question regards the dynamics between developed and developing countries, especially at COP meetings. From your point of view as a negotiator, do you think that there is a divide in the interests of those two country groups, or do you think that interest groups are rather related to issues than geographical location? Or is there a combination of both?

SZ: A combination, yes. I think that the UNCCD as well as the other Rio conventions are a manifestation, a spillover of the United Nations system as a whole. There is a dialogue between developed and developing countries. And the structure of the United Nations, with the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the cooperation partners etc. reflects this idea. And, as I said, the UNCCD is also a reflection of this. This is one point. It is supported by the Articles 5 and 6 of the convention that indicate the obligations of    affected country Parties and developed country Parties. So different responsibilities are given to different groupings of countries. The same can be said for the issue of climate change for example. There are the Articles 2 and 3 of the UNFCCC, where it is said that reduction of greenhouse gas emission concentrations should take place without causing damage to social and economic growth and the countries that have caused these emissions should be responsible. For them, this is the same principle. So, that is one side, the side of the United Nations. But there is another side, the side of the local, the national governments. In developing countries, and even in affected developing countries, DLDD is not a priority. This set of issues is yet to be a priority. For them, as said, the priority is economic growth and poverty reduction. Only if combating DLDD is perceived as helping to achieve poverty reduction and economic growth, it will be part of the package that they can submit to their own governments and to the cooperation partners. The same can be said about the developed country Parties. They don’t have DLDD as a priority issue. There are other priority issues in their frameworks of cooperation and one can see very easily in an empirical study that on a country by country basis desertification is included at a very low priority level. So, none of these two groups have DLDD as a priority.

KS: Ok, thank you. This directly leads to my third question. The question concerns the paper “Revitalizing the UNCCD”. In this paper it is said that the interest in DLDD issues has been relatively low among climate negotiators.

SZ: I agree completely. But can I ask you one question before? What do you think about this paper?

KS: Well, I think that some of the judgments that are made in this paper are relatively harsh, because there are different political dimensions that have to be taken into account. For instance the position of the Parties. One cannot simply say that UNCCD negotiation capacities or policies alone are responsible for this lack of interest. It must be clearly said that even the best negotiators can not shift a country’s priority just like that. Many developed countries also do not like to see themselves just in a donor role. They expect to get something back for their engagement. So I think this paper is …

SZ: Biased?

KS: In a way.

SZ: Well, I agree with your assessment. But let me add one thing on the issue of politicization. The instrument of the convention was politicized since the beginning. So many developed and developing Parties saw this instrument on a different level vis-à-vis climate change and biodiversity, because the UNFCCC and CBD were negotiated based on sound scientific studies. This convention, however, was more of a political manifestation or declaration. Even though there were highly technical preliminaries.

For instance in 1974 there was an international meeting on desertification and another one in the 1980s. In the 1990s, when the convention came to life, twenty years of research needed to be integrated. But it wasn’t like that. So since the beginning, the convention has been seen as politicized. There is evidence for this, institutionally and on the negotiation side. Institutionally, in developing countries the convention is either negotiated by ministers of the environment, or by those of agriculture or foreign affairs. In the developed world, it is very easy to see that many countries have allocated the responsibility for this convention to their ministries of foreign affairs. The ministries of foreign affairs by their own nature are political instruments.

KS: Of course, and not environmental.

SZ: Not environmental, and not agricultural or energy-related like the ministries responsible for the other conventions. In Germany, for example, the ministry for the environment is responsible for the Convention on Biodiversity. The UNCCD is associated with the ministry for economic and development cooperation. Of course, these are different ministries by nature. This is the institutional side. On the negotiation side, since I was a negotiator in the 1990s, I reckon that the environmental community, in the developed as well as in the developing countries, came with their hands full to the conventions on biodiversity and on climate change. They didn’t care much about if this convention was going under the ministries of foreign affairs, because they already had a vision for these huge issues to be dealt with in the biodiversity and climate change conventions. But now, the issue of DLDD has been gaining interest and gaining profile.

KS: I have another question in this context. Was it also difficult for the UNCCD to initiate institutional cooperation because there is a focus on ecological issues on the one hand and on sustainable development on the other hand? Was that hard to combine?

SZ: Yes, it was hard to combine and I think there was not enough clarity from the side of the Parties and the Secretariat that services the Parties. From the Secretariat and other bodies, like the Global Mechanism. Is this a sustainable development convention or an environmental convention? If you say sustainable development convention, you have to have the guidelines for sustainability that guide and influence the decisions and must emanate from them. But COP after COP, the issues of sustainable development and the environment are still mixed together and not very clear. So more guidance and vision is needed.

KS: I see.

SZ: So we need a more strategic vision. And the Executive Secretaries that we have had so far had their own vision. But regarding sustainable development and the environment, a vision has yet to be provided to the Parties.

KS: A vision for combining both?

SZ: Either combining, or going this way or the other way. But some sort of vision.

KS: But by definition, one could say that the UNCCD is an environmental convention in regard to the Rio process as a whole. Do you think that has been prioritized or neither of it?

SZ: Exactly, neither of it. So how can we articulate this issue in a way that can help the affected countries, mostly developing, to address their priority issues? As I said, those priorities are poverty and economic growth. So how can we say: we assist you in your strategic vision, policies or guidelines regarding poverty-reduction and economic growth, including sustainable development in dryland ecosystems, and in view of the livelihoods of the affected communities? This governance is something that is still needed. Raising the awareness for the need to have an institutional focus in developed and developing countries has to be continuously addressed and clearly addressed by the Executive Secretary, the Secretariat, and the bodies of the convention.

KS: Thank you for these interesting insights. Now, there are some issues that have been identified in order to combine climate change and land issues. For instance sustainable land management and land rehabilitation. Do you think that these issues will be included more clearly in future climate agreements? Because right now, they are more or less incorporated in the issue of deforestation.

SZ: Well, sustainable land management is included expressively in the decision 3 of COP 8 of the UNCCD, where is says “DLDD/sustainable land management”. So what the Parties did on the one hand, in my interpretation, is that they identified the negative side, desertification, land degradation and drought, and the positive side, the forward-looking approach. On the other hand, the Bali meeting agreed upon the Bali Action Plan. This plan has building blocks and one of the building blocks is land and agriculture. So land is a building block of climate change adaptation and it is already included in the Bali Action Plan as part of long-term cooperation, action and shared vision.

KS: And why do you think it has not been addressed that much recently?

SZ: Well, in the last 20 years, since the convention on climate change appeared, for negotiators – and I was one, so I know exactly – the idea was to focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course there are other issues, like ecosystem resilience for instance. The terrestrial ecosystem, the marine ecosystem, the economic services provided by these ecosystems and social issues like gender, migration and so on. Now these issues were not specifically included, because the idea was to negotiate an instrument to address the ultimate goal of the UNFCCC: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So at that time it was a milestone to say: we have the climate convention and we have instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto-Protocol. Then, in Bali, the inclusion of the building blocks was the second milestone. So, from Bali until today, it is only two and a half years. In these two and a half years, much has been done to include the terrestrial and other ecosystems into the negotiations.

The problem is that in Copenhagen, the final document to be negotiated was actually not negotiated and something else came up. Now, during the last two years and for financial purposes the UNCCD has been focusing much more on its linkages with mitigation and the carbon contained in soils, in order to bring resources to the affected developing countries. But this has yet to be seen and under the UNFCCC the negotiations on mitigation will go on. But also on adaptation there are policies and measures that are taken, so that we can be included into the negotiation process. I would like to mention that the last document that is on the website, about a shared vision on adaptation and forests, talks about sustainable land management. And this is because of the advocated approaches of this convention. Actually, I have been participating in many meetings throughout 2008 and 2009 in order to include in the negotiations at least sustainable development or rural development, agriculture, water and land etc. Of course the UNCCD cannot claim the whole success, because other relevant actors, such as many country negotiators, the FAO, lots of NGOs, and institutions like IFAD are joining forces to achieve this. But we are a part of this and have been raising awareness among the focal points. Now, there are two more things I would like to mention on sustainable land management: on the conceptual side, for the functioning of an ecosystem, sustainable land management is a prerequisite. For instance, there is land degradation, a solution to land degradation is sustainable land management and these will address climate change. And in this way it should be advocated by the UNCCD. The second aspect is the population, the livelihoods, the human well-being. Whatever we do has to take into consideration the nature and the livelihoods of the people. That is what has been called human well-being. It is included in the rights that all humans have, today, and for future generations. These two long-term objectives can be achieved by concrete action on sustainable land management. Now, what is the prerequisite of sustainable land management? It is governance, empowerment, awareness, information at the local level. So we have to tackle those issues.

KS: How do you think the UNCCD can strengthen the role of local governance?

SZ: As an example, what we have been doing on this issue is choosing a rights-based approach, for instance regarding food security for the populations. In addition, we have the security approach. There is a natural expectation on what the land provides for you. And the government, the communities and the political as well as institutional environment have to enable people to produce on their land, give them the security, assurances and guarantees that they can use the land. Taking decisions from the bottom to the top is also important, as the text of this convention mentions. This is governance, the bottom-to-top approach. And I think this kind of governance is the obvious solution to DLDD.

KS: So while the UNCCD is naturally an instrument of global governance, one could say that through this approach and by its own definition it is also an instrument of local governance?

SZ: Yes, exactly. If we have global solutions on the one side and local solutions on the other, the convention has to advocate globally while being based on a solid local base and actions. Local solutions can help to achieve global solutions. It is an interaction. You used the word dynamics before. This is a dynamic system, and the nature of research in the social sciences is dynamics. I see different dimensions: first, create global awareness. This means training, retraining and all the derivatives like information, technology transfer, manuals, documents, materials etc. The second: act on the legal framework. How can this convention help to develop certain legal frameworks, for instance regarding anti-desertification and pro-sustainable land management? Not only at the national level. Large countries like Brazil and China must also act locally. Even an island needs action at the local level. The third one is the improvement of technology. This is different from education and training. It is learning by doing. How can we help people to achieve their goals on their own and with new technologies? Science is only the input. Science per se has no value. You can produce the best scientific result and put it in a closet. That helps no one. So we need scientific research as an input through which people can improve their own technologies. This is something that can be done and it would mean that research has not only to be done in the developed world, but also at the local level, with the local communities in developing countries. We need to provide the tools and improve the capabilities. Physical tools and also enabling tools, for instance infrastructure like roads and information services like radio or computers.

KS: So as a whole, this approach is about policy, capacity building and physical tools?

SZ: Yes, capacity building, instruments like policy, governance, infrastructure like roads to gain market access, and financial resources. This has to be considered initially. Just take the Marshall Plan for example. There was a lot of money initially. For the earthquake in Haiti, there are a lot of financial pledges initially. You cannot expect affected countries to come all the way from the distant position in which they are now in comparison with other countries regarding human-well being, and come up with all of this by themselves. There are many constraints that they have. So financial resources are important, mostly at the beginning. And this convention has to ensure that some of these resources are allocated for desertification and sustainable land management.

KS: And how do you think this could be achieved?

SZ: Well, my belief is that if what is said about money follows a good idea is true, then this has to be put in practice. But you have to have credibility and you have to have a vision. If you have good idea and you don’t have a long-term vision and your vision is not deducted from the demands of the local populations, it is just another idea put in a closet. So the idea has to be effective and it has to be borne by the people. You need empowerment. You cannot say: “I have an idea and I am going to implant this idea for you!” The idea has to be their idea. This is ownership and for sure it has high transaction costs. The UNCCD has to be aware of these costs. For two decades the UNFCCC has been raising awareness and been investing money in climate change awareness. And I think that is what we need to do. Passing from knowledge to action.

KS: Mr. Zelaya, I thank you very much for this interview.

SZ: You are very welcome.

This interview has been originally published in:

Schulz, Karsten: Linking Land and Soil to Climate Change. The UNCCD in the Context of Global Environmental Governance. Tectum: Marburg 2011, p. 162-171.

The paper is available for sale at Amazon UK as well as Amazon Germany.

If one wants to make a political link between Canada pulling out of Kyoto and also being the main producer of tar sands, he or she would not be wrong. Currently, Canada is viciously lobbying together with the oil industry to weaken the EU proposal on fuel quality and delete the value for tar sands.

Beyond closed-doors “comitology” meetings, there will be a debate in the EU’s the environment council about the fuel quality directive (FQD) and values for unconventional fuels, including tar sands. The issue is under the “Any other business” chapter.

Canada’s confirmation that it will withdraw from the Kyoto profile is regretful, according to UNFCCC Chief Christian Figueres.

Figueres also called on the country to act on its “moral obligations”.

“I regret that Canada has announced it will withdraw and am surprised over its timing,” said Figueres. “Whether or not Canada is a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, it has a legal obligation under the Convention to reduce its emissions, and a moral obligation to itself and future generations to lead in the global effort.”

“Industrialised countries whose emissions have risen significantly since 1990, as is the case for Canada, remain in a weaker position to call on developing countries to limit their emissions,” she said.

The country had pledged to reduce its Greenhouse Gas emissions by 6% compared to 1990 levels by 2012 and instead has seen them rise by 17 percent.

“For Canada, Kyoto is in the past,” said Peter Kent, Canada’s Environment Minister both on the rostrum in Durban on December 6 and in Toronto on Monday.

He denied that Canada was not doing its part for the climate and said that “Canada is carrying its weight, and proud to be doing its share”.

Kent has said that the Protocol is meaningless as it does not include major emitters such as the US and China.

An agreement in Durban to pursue negotiations for a legally binding deal that incorporates all nations will take force by 2020 at the earliest, leaving a gap of eight years without legal emission pledges. The terms for a second commitment period of Kyoto will be agreed upon at COP18 in Qatar.

Background

Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, one day after an update was agreed on, saying the accord won’t work.

The Canadian environment minister, Peter Kent, said Canada was invoking its legal right to withdraw. Kyoto did not represent the way forward for Canada or the world, he added.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year in Cancun, Mexico that they would not accept new Kyoto commitments, but Canada is the only country to repudiate it altogether.

Against a background of record greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, more frequent and intense extreme weather events, but also growing momentum for action to fight climate change, the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban (28 November to 9 December) kicked off today.

At the start of the conference, South African President Jacob Zuma pointed to the climate impacts in Africa as a reason for all governments to take action.

“We have experienced unusual and severe flooding in coastal areas in recent times, impacting on people directly as they lose their homes, jobs and livelihoods. Given the urgency, governments need to strive to find solutions here in Durban. Change and solutions are always possible, and Durban must take us many steps forward towards a solution that saves tomorrow today,” he said.

The newly elected President of the conference, South African Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, stressed that Durban would be a decisive moment for the future of the multilateral rules-based regime. “In Durban, we need to show the world that we are ready to tackle and solve our very real problems in a practical manner,” she said.

According to the UN’s top climate change official, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres, governments can take two major, decisive steps in Durban. The first step relates to completing the most comprehensive package ever to help developing countries adapt to climate change and to limit the growth of their greenhouse gas emissions, which was decided at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun last year.

“The Technology Mechanism and the Adaptation Committee agreed in Cancun can be completed here in Durban so that they can begin benefitting people in 2012,” Ms. Figueres said. “And in Durban, the first phase of the design of the Green Climate Fund can be approved, as a major step on the road towards better supported climate action,” she stated.

Governments can also ramp up funding towards the 100 billion USD of long-term climate finance they have already agreed to provide by 2020 and need to work out the “what” and the “how” for a review agreed in Cancun that will assess the adequacy of a below 2 degrees Celsius temperature limit, including in relation to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The second decisive step that can be made in Durban relates to how governments will work together to achieve their common goal of limiting the global temperature rise to a level which will prevent the worst ravages of climate change.

“This means, as a central task for Durban, answering the very important question of the future of the Kyoto Protocol. At the same time, governments will need to agree on how they want to pursue a broader framework to reduce greenhouse gases under the Climate Change Convention,” Ms. Figueres said.

Ms. Figueres drew attention to the fact that action on climate change is presently building nationally, regionally and at all levels of society, and that this positive momentum can feed into the UN climate change process.
“These negations are about securing a better future and improving the quality of life of people. The momentum for change is building, not least in developing countries. More can be achieved if governments and the private sector work in partnerships,” she said.

Together with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and South African President Jacob Zuma, the UN Climate Change secretariat will in Durban launch a “Momentum for Change” initiative on 6 December designed to demonstrate how the public and private sectors are already working together to fight climate change.

One of the main issues at the Conference of the Parties 17 in Durban, South Africa, will be negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol which is set to expire in 2012. The European Union is looking to push for a new commitment period under the Protocol, which is being blocked by Japan, Canada and the USA.

Weeks before the Conference is set to begin, the EU has announced that it will look to build a ¨coalition of the willing¨ for the new Kyoto Protocol. Countries that have stated their interest to join are China, the group of 77 developing countries (G77), the least-developed countries (LDCs) and the Alliance for Small Island States (AOSIS). This means that many developed nations are reluctant to commit, which would leave the states with the largest share of greenhouse-gas emissions out of the system. In effect, this would not have the required effect of globally reducing emissions.

However, facing a situation where most Parties agree on a new Protocol, it is expected that these developed nations will fold and join in instead of be left out. The doubts surrounding the role of the USA are strongest, since if it does not join such an agreement, it would lose its role as ´leader of the world´, at lease in climate change negotiations. Also, the USA is one of the most polluting nations in the world, and an agreement without them would be a huge blow to the process. Still, the EU is looking to build up momentum for a global deal, and it will not accept a handful of nations blocking a near-worldwide agreement.

Furthermore, the European Parliament called for the EU to show strong leadership in Durban on Nov. 16th. MEPs voted on a resolution to support this position, which passed with 532 votes for, 76 against, and 43 abstentions. Jo Linen, Chairman of the Environment and Public Safety Committee stated: “The economic crisis must not be used as an excuse not to act. The EU should back the Kyoto Protocol and work with other countries on a roadmap to ensure a comprehensive climate treaty is in place by 2015 at the latest”.

Apart from the focus on the Kyoto Protocol, the Parliament resolution calls for a need to settle the question of how much the EU can contribute to the Green Climate Fund´s $100 billion a year for developing countries. Also, it states that new measures have to be agreed upon on maritime and aviation transport, an issue which was scrapped from the Cancun agreement due to disagreement. All of this aims at reaffirming the commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to meet the 2 degrees Celsius target, which includes addressing the ¨emissions gap¨.

On the whole, the European Parliament delegation at Cancun will work tightly together with Commissioner Hedegaard on addressing all these issues. It seems the EU will strike as many agreements as possible with willing Parties, while try to convince the reluctant ones to join or be excluded from the process. In the inclusive nature of the UN, it is doubtful whether it will support such a divisive measure.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. Photo: The Lisbon Council

Only weeks before the Conference of the Parties 17 in Durban, South Africa is set to begin, Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, was in Brussels for the Robert Schuman lecture, organized by the Lisbon Council. Ms. Figueres outlined the priorities for the CoP 17 and urged civil society, business, and nations to do their part in fighting climate change.

To believers that climate change policy can be made in a day, Ms. Figueres pointed out that Robert Schuman himself took a step-by-step approach to realize his dream of a lasting peace in Europe. This policy-grafting approach may be slow, too slow in fact, to address the urgent need to transform our economy to a low-carbon one. All the same, the approach is viewed as successful. However, building peace from the rubble of World War II is where the parallel ends. Preventive action is required in the case of the environment, and not resuscitation after the damage has been done.

One of the major set-backs in at the CoP 16 in Cancun was the effort to agree on a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. Without such an agreement, the efforts to continue with a broad mitigation framework are severely hampered and the ongoing negotiations do not show a light at the end of the tunnel. In addition to this, the European Union has been attempting to ‘blackmail’ the other Parties to agree on the issue by stating that if they accept a new commitment period (provisionally named “Kyoto II”), the EU will raise its greenhouse-gas emissions target to 30% (from the current 20%). In Ms. Figueres’ viewpoint, this is a lackluster attitude which has received a similarly lackluster response from the Convention. In similar fashion, if industrialized countries take a serious, ambitious, and vigorous approach to an agreement on mitigation and the Kyoto Protocol, they will receive a similar answer from the rest of the Parties.

Furthermore, after the fiasco at CoP 15 in Copenhagen, business leaders had become pessimistic at best about the Cancun negotiations. The fact that an agreement was produced shocked the business world into believing in the process once more. “The Cancun agreements comprised the most comprehensive package to help developing nations”, Ms. Figueres stated. There is little need to point out that infrastructure building and technology transfer, as agreed by the Parties, opens up enormous markets for business in developing countries.

“The business success of tomorrow is born on the low-carbon opportunities of today.”

Even so, it is a widespread belief that business needs a strong signal from policy-makers in order to act on environmental issues. Adoption of the step-by-step approach means that this ingredient is weak and slow. At the same time, businesses are instrumental in the interpretation of the supply and demand structures of the modern market, and can therefore potentially send strong signals to governments. Ms. Figueres labeled this the “vicious circle” of climate change mentality. However, this can be reversed into a virtuous circle if businesses manage to introduce a change in consumer and supplier behavior and send a strong message to governments that the people are not satisfied with business as usual. More specifically, when it comes to changes in industry and energy, national leaders require input from the market.

Entrepreneurship, as a strong component of capitalism, is the key to the puzzle. Ms. Figueres received input from Harry Verhaar, senior director for energy and climate change at Philips, and Harry van Dorenmalen, chairman of IBM Europe. Both emphasized that there is no “quick-fix” for climate change, but that technology is the most important component. They stressed the position that people are not fully aware of the role technology can already play in contributing to a low-carbon economy.

“If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”

Mr. Verhaar pointed out that, in addition to technology, we need a policy framework, financing, and communication to tackle climate change. Due to the step-by-step approach at the UNFCCC, the first aspect is slow in its development. In the context of the economic and debt crises, financing has become a taboo subject. However, for businesses, financial systems also mean discovering a new way of budget-building and implementation – one that focuses on an optimization of cost-benefit ratios and emphasizes efficiency. As for communication, he stressed that there are many eco-innovators and they need to disseminate their ideas, improve interaction with citizens, and work together.

In agreement, Mr. van Dorenmalen introduced the need for another component – leadership. So far, policy-makers have not provided the required level of strong leadership to drive the policy process forward. If business was to step in, it would also be observed that a company requires strong leadership to implement the changes paramount to the transfer to a low-carbon economy. Tapping into talent internationally means the use of modern social media and the grouping of ideas. To set the wheels in motion, CEOs and business leaders have to assume a strong leadership position.

In answer to these views, Ms. Figueres presented an open question to all eco-innovators: “Are you collectively being vocal enough to at least balance, if not drown out, the corporate voices of those who see no benefit in action?” This also applies to consumers and civil society organizations – there has to be an informed balance between climate change skeptics and extreme environmentalists.

As individuals, it may be hard to change the world by replacing a single light-bulb, but even a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Global climate negotiations are a step-by-step journey, and we can only hope they are heading in the right direction.

Usually news on big company leaders that blow the climate change whistle smells like greenwash. However, this time an outstanding initiative broke up. Leaders of almost 200 major companies around the world have called for tougher action on climate change. The 2C Challenge, co-ordinated by the Prince of Wales Corporate Leaders Group, says that climate change puts society’s future prosperity at risk. 2Celsius Network is forwarding the message and urges companies in Central and Eastern Europe to undersign the communiqué.

The 2°C Challenge Communiqué calls on governments to break the deadlock in the international negotiations and take the necessary action at a national level to ensure a successful transition to green growth and a climate resilient economy.

Starting with the negotiations in Bali in 2007, previous Communiqués quickly gained wide business and NGO support, with 950 companies endorsing its message of support for an “ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change” before the UN climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009. This year, business leaders emphasise that the window of opportunity to stabilise warming to 2°C “has almost closed”.

The Communiqué notes that, if they fail to act, governments “risk permanent damage to their credibility”, but the right action would “secure a low carbon-emission economy that is more resilient, more efficient and less vulnerable to global shock”. Without an international deal, “business will have insufficient clarity or certainty of action to invest to its full potential”.

Read about and the communique at http://www.2degreecommunique.com/

The communique is being left open for signature through the Durban meeting up to the Rio+20 summit next year in Brazil, which marks 20 years since the original and seminal Earth Summit.

In the wake of the Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa, in December this year, UNFCCC has revealed the information document and the Fast-start Finance submissions from developed countries are now available on the newly-launched Fast-start Finance module of the Finance Portal for Climate Change. Journalists from all over the world will be keen to keep an eye on how their governments are allocating fast start funding money and how that money is being spent in order to bridge the North-South divide of adaptation to climate change.

During the Conference of the Parties (COP15) held in December 2009 in Copenhagen developed countries pledged to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012 and with balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation. This collective commitment has come to be known as ‘fast-start finance’.

Following up on this pledge, the Conference of the Parties in Cancún, in December 2010, took note of this collective commitment by developed country Parties and reaffirmed that funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa.

Further, the COP invited developed country Parties to submit information on the resources provided to achieve this goal, including ways in which developing country Parties access these resources by May 2011, 2012 and 2013.

“We don’t know yet”

Just for the sake of having a rather too discursive background on what we can expect from Durban, we hereby attach the words of Christiana Figueres, UNFCCC Executive Secretary, on the upcoming COP17:

“The progress on the infrastructure-building that Cancun delivered is encouraging and an important step forward.  But Cancun fell short of addressing the real political issues, and this needs to be done in Durban.

Of course this concerns the open questions on the Kyoto Protocol and the emerging mitigation framework.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, negotiations are beginning to work against the clock.  With the end of the first commitment period almost in sight, and the critical need to ensure that pledges will be met, there is an urgent need to find a viable way forward in Durban.

Yet within the negotiations, there is still uncertainty on how the nature and status of emission reductions should be handled going forward.

Many Parties want targets for Annex I Parties to be inscribed in a new second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol.  Others have stated that they will not participate in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and would like to see mitigation commitments and actions formally anchored and monitored in a new mitigation framework under the Climate Change Convention.  The European Union has opened the possibility of a second commitment period if others embark on comparable efforts.

Durban needs to address both further commitments of developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol and the evolution of the mitigation framework under the Convention, while ensuring the differentiated participation of developing countries.  Realistically, and out of necessity, this may need to involve interim arrangements.  Which arrangements?  We donít know yet.  According to what rules?  We don’t know yet.  Interim for how long?  We don’t know yet.”

A major carbon accounting flaw in EU legislation whereby biofuels used in transport and biomass used for power generation are counted as ‘zero emissions’ will have “immense” consequences for the environment. This is the key finding of a report published by the Scientific Committee of the European Environment Agency, a top EU advisory body.

The report warns that counting biofuels and biomass as ‘zero emissions’ is wrong because it ignores the emissions that come when the fuels are burned, assuming that this impact is automatically offset when new plants grow. In many cases these emissions will not be offset because increased demand for land for bioenergy will just displace emissions elsewhere.

The report goes on to say that “if bioenergy could or should provide 20% to 50% of the world’s energy needs in coming decade…doing so would require doubling or tripling the total amount of plant material currently harvested from the planet’s land.” Such an increase would have devastating environmental consequences.

The report follows the similar findings of a study published in June last year by three environmental organisations, BirdLife Europe, EEB, and T&E. The organisations have repeatedly called for an end to so-called ‘zero counting’ of bioenergy emissions, including those from biofuels production.

The EU is currently reviewing one of the accounting flaws linked to its mandatory renewable energy target for transport, which will mostly come from a switch to biofuels. Currently so-called EU ‘sustainability criteria’ fail to account for the central question of indirect impacts on land use and emissions (Indirect land use change or ILUC). ILUC occurs when biofuel crops replace food crops. The land needed to grow the missing food is displaced, often to the developing world. This in turn causes rainforests and other sensitive eco-systems to be destroyed to grow food, causing a massive release of emissions.

Many EU countries are scaling up on biomass for heat and power, and biofuels for transport to meet mandatory European renewable targets. The report shows that continuing with today’s flawed carbon accounting would lead to an increase rather than a decrease of emissions in the real world.

Biomass and biofuels receive generous subsidies and tax breaks across Europe, leaving the EU faced with the prospect of an ‘environmental’ measure causing disastrous consequences, and largely funded by the taxpayer.

Ariel Brunner, Head of EU policy of BirdLife Europe said: “The EU has been basing its entire bioenergy policy on fake carbon accounting; the result is a sub-prime bioenergy mortgage that will never be paid off unless the EU changes course immediately.”

Faustine Defossez of the European Environmental Bureau said: “This study should be taken as a wake up call to start bringing out some badly needed policy adjustments: it is now clear that the increase in harvesting of plant material for energy purposes, foreseen under the Renewable Directive, will have serious negative environmental, including climate impacts”

Nusa Urbancic of Transport & Environment said: “The European Commission has been sitting on its hands for almost three years figuring out what to do about the indirect effects of biofuels. Every serious scientific body that has studied the issue says action is needed, the EEA is the latest in a long line. The EU should waste no more time coming forward with a proposal to fix this massive accounting hole. It’s important not just for the environment but also for the biofuels industry in Europe, which has frozen most of its investments, until it knows what the future rules are going to be.”

Read full report here.