As a “trademark” achievement of the global community, the Paris Agreement can be considered as a very important agreement document produced by the international community during COP21. However, many parties face problems in implementation. Even when a country decides to commit to the Paris Agreement, nothing will happen unless action is taken on the ground. Decisions from the international and national level have to be relayed to the local authorities in order for actual work to be done. Cities have to spearhead the action and become a more sustainable and livable place.
From the trend of COP23, it is obvious that more attention has shifted towards community-led actions, diverting from a national level centric approach. This is where cities come in. Cities, being the center of the fight for sustainable development and against climate change, has to promote integrated and sustainable urban planning. Having an intimate connection with the local community, cities are able to understand the needs of the people better and provide better service to the people when integrating climate risks into urban planning and management through policy intervention. Cities have the capacity to attract finance and involve the private sector. They could invest in projects that bring environmental benefit while bringing economic benefit to the local community.
We can look at the example of the Sino-Singapore Tianjin eco-city project that was designed to be practical and replicable, positioned to be a role model for resource efficiency and low emission development. Yaoundé, the capital of Cameroon, was also able to integrate climate risks into their urban planning process and ensured that community-based adaptation is in place to enhance resilience towards urban flooding.
Around a two-hours’ drive away from Kuala Lumpur lies Malacca, where a sustainable city development takes place. Launched in May 2017, the project has received a grant of 2.7 million US Dollars and 20 million US Dollars in in-kind funding. The project has four components: economic, development, social and smart, aiming to balance each area in the planning of the cities. Through the project, Malacca also worked with World Bank in order to improve its creditworthiness to attract more private investment, hoping to shift the local authorities project monitoring focus from solely federal projects.
Thus far the initial assessment seems promising, with most of the goals reached. However, Malacca does face a rather tricky problem: carbon emission by tourists. According to the initial assessment, Malacca attracts 16 million tourists per year which amounts to 4.3 million tCO2e. With revenue from tourism on one hand and climate impact on the other, the state has to get out from this sticky situation as soon as possible.
The Rapid Assessment of Sustainability Outlook for Malacca was able to run smoothly because it had the support of high-level leadership. The project was proven implementable within a six-months’ time frame and the initial two months are critical in building momentum. A point to note is that emphasis needs to be placed on leveraging existing institutional governance, mobilizing local consultants, and being inclusive of all economic sectors.
As the Paris Agreement reposition cities as a driver of climate action, the importance of cities as a solution towards climate change increased along with more attention from the IPCC. Cities are the stakeholders that could work towards the goal country leaders committed at the international level. However, currently, the gap between the national level and local level is still significant such that a session by the Global Environment. Hopefully, the scene would be better soon.
Sources from session of the 9th World Urban Forum #WUF9
Below are some compilation of youth speak during COP23.
Xiandi and Mike delivered interventions on behalf of YOUNGO, the UNFCCC youth constituency. Xiandi delivered her intervention at the opening of APA 1-4, while Mike delivered his intervention at the closing of the COP.
.
Syaqil and Jasmin was interviewed by Climate Tracker, an NGO and research body that tracks negotiations at the UN climate change conference, to talk about the importance of youth involvement at COP.
.
Jasmin and Mike were interviewed for Self Made Future
Aerial view of Hambach coal mine. (Source: Bernhard Lang & Huffington Post)
There were several overarching and predominant themes at COP23. Two of which have been the need for increased ambition pre and post-2020 through NDCs, as well as the rise of non-party stakeholders. A third theme I saw across the two weeks was the conversation on coal.
Firstly, there was the Climate March on the 4th of November, which called for nations to end coal mining and production. Covered by media from all over the world, the march made waves in the news, highlighting the importance for countries to divest from coal and fossil fuels. An estimated 25,000 people attended the march, including a few of us from MYD. It was such an amazing experience and gave us great context into the fight the people of Europe are putting up against their governments and corporations in the battle against climate change.
Secondly, there was the Ende Gelände movement. Before heading to Germany, I hadn’t heard of this movement. Just before and during COP, I was introduced to the movement and the Hambach coal mine. Situated a mere 50 kilometers away from the COP venue in Bonn, Hambach is the largest open-pit coal mine in Europe, emitting the most carbon dioxide in the continent. In addition to an extremely dirty type of coal called lignite, or brown coal, being extracted there, the coal mine has caused the continual degradation of the surrounding area, including the famous Hambach Forest, a 12,000-year old growth forest. Over the past decade, the Hambach Forest has become a symbol for climate change and of Europe’s inability to leave dirty power in the past. Over the two weeks at COP23, the coal conversation was prevalent, especially in highlighting the hypocrisy of Germany’s rhetoric of clean energy, which the Hambach coal mine roars on. The Ende Gelände movement ultimately culminated in a mass protest at the coal mines by a group of 3,500 activist, just a day before the start of COP23.
Jasmin and Syaqil with a native Sarawakian at the Climate March in Bonn.
This brings us to COP23, where two noteworthy coal-related events took place – the promotion of “clean coal” by the Trump administration, and the announcement of the Powering Past Coal Alliance. Hugely publicized, it was well known that the Trump administration did not endorse the traditional US Climate Center that’s a regular at each COP. Instead, there was only one official side-event from the US government, called “The Role of Cleaner and More Efficient Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power in Climate Mitigation”. Led by the US People’s Delegation, there was a demonstration and walk out that drew massive social media buzz. The Powering Past Coal alliance was announced just before the end of COP23 and consists of Britain, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Mexico and the Marshall Islands. The alliance plans to phase out the use of coal by 2030, which many will argue is just not soon or urgent enough, and underlines the hypocrisy and difference between clean energy rhetoric and action on the ground.
Of course, these two events were not directly related to the COP negotiations, but they were definitely strategically planned, taking place literally just a few days before the summit. Some would argue that any event that takes place outside of the negotiations are distractions and don’t help the cause and the fight against climate change, but I would disagree with that opinion. I think that when we talk about climate change, it needs to be from all angles, in a holistic manner. So, while governments are duking it out in the cozy halls of the makeshift COP venue, any kind of protest, demonstration, or march does justice in drawing attention from all over the world and hopefully puts pressure on countries to act on climate change.
Santiago de Chile- a room that will be forever remembered as the room I got kicked out of.
From the beginning of COP23, I followed the negotiations on global stocktake. I went to every session I could – G77 coordination meetings, working groups, and most importantly, informal consultations between the co-facilitators and the parties. By the afternoon of the 14th of November, the negotiations on GST had come to a conclusion. The parties had agreed on the rough building blocks and after one iteration, they agreed on an informal note produced by the co-facilitators as well. So that was it. It felt like my road at COP23 had come to a premature end. I felt directionless and lost now that there were no more meetings for GST. So, I just decided to stumble into a meeting on climate finance – something Thomas had been following since week 1 of COP23.
As Thomas will admit, the first time you step into a climate finance session, you’ll feel more lost than navigating the streets of KL without Waze. As I got sucked into the multiple agenda items that were being discussed, one issue in particular stood out and slowly I recognized how much of a problem it would be over the next few days. The discussion over Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement was a contentious one that dragged out across the two weeks, leading to a delay in the closing of the COP. In a nutshell, Article 9.5 states that developed countries should communicate their financial contributions on a biennial basis. At the COP23 negotiations, this portion of the Paris Agreement was faced push back by developed nations as they feared the implied financial commitments that the article carries.
On Friday, 17th November, I attended an open-ended consultation on the Article 9.5 issue early in the day. Conclusions and consensus could not be achieved, so the session was adjourned by the presidency, represented by Fiji Chief Negotiator, Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan. She called for a meeting between the heads of delegation later in the day. Thomas and I made it a point to be early.
We arrived at Santiago de Chile about 15 minutes before the heads of delegation session was scheduled to start. The room at the time was relatively empty. Half an hour goes by and the room slowly fills with people, from parties and from CSOs, until the room is at capacity. Thomas and I proceed to give up our seats and go to sit on the floor in the back of the room. This was a high-level meeting and we wanted to keep a low profile in case anyone deemed us undeserving of being in the room. In the end, us sitting on the floor made no difference, as a lady from the UNFCCC secretariat came over to us to kick us out of the room. We had every right to be there, but unfortunately the room was just way too full for people who were not part of a delegation to be in the room.
With our heads hung low, and feeling absolutely dejected, we left the room, along with a few other people. We stood outside the room for a solid 10 to 15 minutes, hoping there was a way for us to get back in. As we saw more people come to the session only to be turned away by the security guards, the hope started to fade. The guards were so firm that they even prevented the lead negotiator from Egypt from entering. At that point, Thomas and I decided to call it a night and head to a closing dinner with the rest of our MYD teammates. We felt like we were ending our COP23 experience on a low and felt quite disappointed for the rest of the night. Thankfully for us, our COP23 journey didn’t end there and little did we know, it was only the beginning of a long night ahead for us.
On the 8th November 2017, the German Pavilion had a session on Global Stocktake: Information from the science.The session comprised of leading and influential figures from both the government and scientific fields. It was chaired by Ms. Eliza Norton of the World Resources institute, and the esteemed panelists were:
Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)
H.E. Janine Felson, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of Belize to the United Nations
Dr. Kiyoto Tanabe, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Nicole Wilke, German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety
From the left towards right: Eliza, Nicole, Prof. Ottmar, Janine, Dr. Kiyoto
The session kicked off with a welcoming remark by Eliza, followed by an introduction of speakers. She then proceeded to moderate the session, with an opening question, “What does the global stocktake need to deliver? And how does science complements?”
Nicole was first to answer the question by pointing out that in order to stay below 2C or 1.5C, we need to take additional action. She said that we are still far from where we have to be, thus we need to take the opportunity, latching on the gap report that is coming out. There are two crucial questions that science have to deliver, which are;
Where are we?
Where do the opportunities lie?
The ‘Where are we?’ question reflects on how big of a gap we have to fill, in terms of mitigation, adaptation and resilience, as well as finance. For the second question, which is ‘Where do opportunities lie?’ refers to the need to mention non-state actors and CSOs, in order to get the momentum going.
Janine added that the global stocktake is a monumental task. She urged for policy makers to step out of the negotiating mindset, and instead looking at it as a catalyser. In order for a significant transformation to occur, we need to be progressive and aggressive. For example, start researching and looking into options of what countries have done in terms of adaptation, mitigation and finance, then proceed to see where we should start investing. She strongly stated that we need to start switching the gears of finance into a low carbon emission pathway. The science that we have need to be useful, especially to the policymakers. She conveyed that a successful global stocktake is one that information could be easily communicated across various sectors and interest groups.
Eliza then agreed with Janine, on her point that it is important to truly have that cooperation on a catalytic approach. Thus, there is a need to have design and modality to provide a space to carry out that conversation.
Moving on, the following question that Eliza put forward was regarding the relationship of science and the global stocktake, and how can science be the guiding principle for the global stocktake.
Prof. Ottmar gave a refreshing view on this. He said as former co-chair of IPCC, if one would like to reference science, there is a need to reform IPCC. He continued on by saying that some governments hate to talk about the past. In the case of emissions development, some governments even deleted graphs in policy papers. He is convinced that science need to deliver a coherent assessment and evidence based on policy analysis. However, we are currently in a situation where maturity of social science and economic research cat be delivered yet. There is a need for a new kind of funding in the research part. Referring back to the IPCC mandate, it was only a policy element with policy prescriptive. With this said, the content of IPCC can be fulfilled in terms of climate physics, but there is a problem when it comes to IPCC having to evaluate government policies.
Speaking from a current IPCC panel perspective, Dr. Kiyoto pointed out that the IPCC is currently putting together the 6th Assessment Report (AR6) and the SBSTA encourages IPCC to pay extra attention to GST. Hence, in the AR6, there is a specific mention of GST that can be found in the framing of Chapter 1. Dr. Kiyoto highlighted that a key area that is under the IPCC, which is the methodology report for national inventories. The Agenda Item 13 of the Paris Agreement, which is transparency framework for action and support, requires countries to submit report including national greenhouse gas emissions and the GST. All reports will be made available by 2023. He asked whether is there a need to align the assessment cycle with GST cycle, then suggested that perhaps IPCC establish a task force for the issue.
Before continuing on to the questions and answers session, Eliza asked on the gaps and considerations of the IPCC.
Nicole voiced out that there were multiple information and assessment on where we are as it has been developed quite a lot in past IPCC reports. However, in terms of GST, there are a lot to update. She called for the IPCC to continuously provide input. This was because when it came to cooperation, there is a gap on how to implement it. She mentioned that social science played a crucial role, especially in terms on working with instruments. An example given was on the NDC partnership that was launched by Germany and Morocco in COP22. More support is clearly needed, particularly in terms of ideas on how to better implement it.
Prof. Ottmar reiterated that he have no intention to have IPCC to change. Ideally, IPCC should carry out policy evaluation, however the function of IPCC cannot be replicated quite easily. He emphasised that we are now in a different phase. There is a need to prove that climate change is man made. We are now moving into a phase on “how” to do it, not “why” anymore. There is a need to merge scientific body evidence together with the science and policy interface, thus resulting in evidence based policy.
Janine continued on, saying that there are already own scoping exercise being carried out by colleagues on the ground in terms of science, policy and evaluation. With this process, it ensures that IPCC have strong legitimacy. She added that there is value in bringing information on other inputs.
Touching on the topic of GST, Dr. Kiyoto addressed that GST is not to evaluate each countries NDC. However, there is a need to carry it out in a manner that is facilitative. With that being said, we need to take into account each countries policy decision process. He also expressed that AR6 cycle needs to do something new.
Following on Dr. Kiyoto’s point on GST and NDC, Prof. Ottmar said that GST required careful analysis of different NDC. Metaphorically, he said that there is a need to have a common denominator for a central currency. He also further elaborated that we have to avoid using the stocktake as a blaming and shaming exercise.
Putting her perspective into words, Nicole shared that GST is an exercise, but not on an individual country level. It is obviously in the interest for each government if the policy delivers. In order for a collective analysis to be carried out, there is a huge need for science to develop tools for the multilateral process.
To conclude, Janine eloquently said that if we want an output, then we need to negotiate on an output. On the technical phase, we need to put it on papers. There is also a need to crunch data to make it easily communicated to those involved. It is more important to look at the outcome more than output.
The session then proceeded with Q&A session from the floor, before ending.
Graphic recording by Björn Pertoft, Visual Facilitator
