![Minister of NRE speech during the high-level segment]()
by admin | Nov 19, 2017 | #MYD, MYD2017, UNFCCC
As COP23 comes to a close, the high-level segment is a segment given by government officials to announce their respective countries pledge. The high-level segment of United Nations Climate Change Conference was attended by Heads of State and Government and other dignitaries and was inaugurated in the afternoon of Wednesday, 15 November 2017. National Statements from Parties were concluded on Thursday, 16 November 2017.
I would like to share the High-level segment statements from Malaysia given by the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment YB Dato Sri Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar, who took to the stage and announced Malaysia’s pledge in fighting against climate change (picture below). He announced that Malaysia is on track to achieving its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in 2030, which was to reduce the Greenhouse Gas equivalence intensity by GDP as much as 45% percent (35% conditional, 10% foreign aid) based on the emissions by GDP of 2005. He then mentions the efforts Malaysia have done, was to ensure that we are on track such as the Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) project, that would reduce as much as 62-89 million cars on the road by 2030, the preservation of 50% forest cover in Malaysia through the Central Forest Spine project and the Heart of Borneo project.
The Minister also mentions that Malaysia has received approval from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) up to $500 million for REDD+ Results Based Payments (RBP) that will be of great financial aid in reducing national GHG emissions. Our country has updated the National REDD+ Strategy reducing emissions by 15 – 25 Million Tonnes Carbon Dioxide equivalent (MtCO2eq) per year, and is now the third country in the world fulfilling the REDD+ requirements of the UNFCCC.
The Minister said: “At this COP, we remain fully committed to negotiating in good faith and in the constructive spirit of the Paris Agreement towards finalizing the Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines needed to comprehensively and effectively implement the Paris Agreement and in so doing, enhance the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Convention on Climate Change.”
Counties in its entirety have reinstated that they are committed to the Paris Agreement and have taken action to combat climate change to achieve the said target of below 2 degrees celsius. This was also the time that countries urge Parties on issues that have not been resolved and is especially concerning to the countries. Small island nations like Samoa, Kiribati, Tonga, have urged genuine global cooperation between the developed and developing countries in the implementation of the PA . On top of that, they have urged COP to address the implementation of Loss and Damage according to the Warsaw Implementation Mechanism (WIM) and better transparency in Climate Finance.
Malaysia is considered a fortunate country as we are a nation that has the resources to overcome the effects of climate change. But that is coming to an end as our country have been experiencing greater and greater effects of climate change such as floods, crop failure and high temperature anomalies. It is time we as the people of Malaysia work in parallel with the government to help fight against climate. Small actions such as recycling, consuming less meat, planting trees and etc will contribute a big change as a nation. Malaysia Boleh!
Read Full Speech Here
Written by Azam
Edited by Varun
![CAN discussions of Article 4 in PA]()
by admin | Nov 19, 2017 | #MYD, MYD2017, UNFCCC
The Climate Action Network (CAN) held a strategy planning for COP23 to pressure negotiators to ensure that the negotiations will adhere to the Paris Agreement. One of the working groups focuses on the issues pertaining Article 4: Mitigation specifically Agriculture.
One of the agricultural topics that was discussed was in regards to global livestock production that creates large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that contribute to 14.5% of global GHG emissions. Scientific evidence shows that current collective action cannot meet the target of achieving temperature rise below 2 degrees let alone within the limit of 1.5 degrees. Through current efforts, the expected temperature rise in 2050 will reach a dearing temperature of 3 degrees. By urging negotiators to push for implementation of agriculture in climate talks which includes technology transfer, financial aid, food security etc. the reduction of GHG emissions can contribute to meeting the targets set in the PA.
The Emissions Gap Report showing that our current “business as usual” path will take us to 3 degree rise
The discussion was also focused on the use of the term food security and food production. During the discussion, it was brought up how food production is used to market the production of livestock especially beef as an excuse to insure food security. Paradoxically, the beef production giant companies of some countries actually produce less food as the production of 1kg beef requires 10kg of grain and 14,000 litres of water. Because of that, the total of the 5 biggest beef companies of the world produces more GHG emissions than oil companies such as Exxon, Shell, or BP (Figure below). This is due to the effects of high methane production from cattle as one unit of methane has a global warming potential (GWP) of 86 units of carbon dioxide gas over a 20 year time period. CAN hopes to push for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) negotiations to deliver meaningful action of agriculture in all aspects on the ground, by linking specifically with the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI).
click to open larger
You can check the research done by Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and GRAIN released in the form of a joint fact-sheet with the Heinrich Böll Foundation about livestock emissions here.
Another related discussion was the use of technology transfer, by means of agricultural technological aid from Annex 1 to Non-Annex countries , the amount of emissions produced can be reduced and mitigated. This is in conjunction with Article 9 of the Paris Agreement that stipulates the developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in their continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention text.
The CAN members also shared what happened during the SBSTA meeting. During the SBSTA meeting of item 3 (mitigation), the parties provided 3 ideas in regards to agriculture; (1) Developed country parties is pushing for the proposal or support for mapping i.e creating an action plan from the current situation of each parties, (2) Parties pushes the agenda for SBSTA negotiations to deliver meaningful action on the ground, by linking specifically with the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), (3) Create more mitigation workshops and ensure that SBSTA should provide advices during workshops as it was not been doing previously.
Update:
On the 10th of November, Parties have finally agreed on Agriculture implementation in COP. After five years of negotiations of procedural and political discussions, the Agriculture working group has come to an agreement to discuss concrete options at future meetings and forwarded a major new decision to the COP. The agreed joint work between SBSTA and SBI will finally allow the implementation of Agriculture. Implementation is important especially when food systems are at such risk of climate impacts and that the industrialised agriculture was contributive to climate change.
René Castro, assistant Director-General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have said that “Countries now have the opportunity to transform their agricultural sectors to achieve food security for all through sustainable agriculture and strategies that boost resource-use efficiency, conserve and restore biodiversity and natural resources, and combat the impacts of climate change.”
Written by Azam
Edited by Varun
![The irony that is the Hambach Pit Mine]()
by admin | Nov 19, 2017 | #MYD, MYD2017
On the 8th of November, Lhavanya and I embarked on a tour to see the Hambach open pit mine, the largest man-made hole in Europe. It is said to be so large that it can fit the whole city of Cologne and in fact, remains the deepest man-made hole on the Earth’s surface, descending around 400m below sea level.
The excavators biting into the soil to extract lignite, more commonly known as brown coal, are just as haunting as they are impressive feats of engineering. Not only does it tower like a 30-storey building, the length of these ‘monsters’ span two football fields! What makes it even more ironic that Germany possesses the largest brown coal mine in the world is the fact that it’s perceived as a leader in renewable energy, with the country generating more solar energy than any other nation.
For a country that’s supposed to be a model of green growth and clean energy, one has to wonder about the existence of such a monstrous site that used to be the home of the Hambach forest. Said to be around 12,000 years old, the forest is rich in biodiversity as it has over 100 species of flora and fauna. One would think that efforts would have been made into making the area a conservation site, considering the historical significance of the location.
The Hambach open pit mine. (PC-Lhavanya)
In fact, that’s what some environmentalists think, and in this case, do, as they’ve left the comfort of their homes to live in the forest that was bought over by RWE, a German electric utilities company, in 1978. As of 2017, only 10% of the forest remains and it’s expected to be gone between 2018 and 2020 to make way for more excavation work.
As we walked deeper into the forest, accompanied by one of the residents, we were brought to a meagre community where people lived in make-shift treehouses, used portable self-made toilets (that is if they didn’t just dig a hole in the ground) and live off stale bread and produce from dumpster-diving. It was one thing to have heard about such communities living in forests as a symbol of protest against a greedy profit-driven large corporation, but having been toured around in an actual site that is the epitome of the aforementioned scenario, I couldn’t help but to have felt a powerful pang of being at a loss. It would make sense if the presence of these self-proclaimed anarchists would hinder RWE from cutting down the rest of the forest and excavating the soil, but we heard from the guide ourselves that what’s little left of the forest will be gone in the next couple of years.
Pondering in hindsight about the whole scenario has made me realise that the efforts of these supposed overzealous people would bear some fruit after all. I say overzealous because at the time, it seemed like that whole act was meaningless because the forest is going to be lost anyways.
Now that I think about it again, this act of ‘anarchy’ goes beyond trying to prevent greedy corporations from decimating ancient land. Rather, I look at this occupation as a symbol of apathy from now on. I look at it as a symbol of apathy because when I picture human flesh being pulverised as excavators bulldoze through the forest along with the human settlements, I would feel sadness and to an extent, shock, at not only the loss of a fellow human but at the manner in which he had gone.
I believe that’s how everyone should feel when these excavators decimate the forest. A great deal of sadness, shock and pain… because not only is nature a part of us, but it is that we are a part of nature too.
Written by Syaqil
Edited by Varun
![The rise of non-party stakeholders and the American resistance]()
by admin | Nov 17, 2017 | #MYD, MYD2017, UNFCCC
Climate change can be a depressing topic to discuss. And from what I’ve seen and heard, COPs aren’t the most optimistic environments. But there’s a story at COP23 that I think contrasts the negotiations here in Bonn. While Parties have been on agenda items at COP, CMP, APA, and SB meetings, the US Climate Action Center has been hosting events just outside the UN jurisdiction of the Bula Zone.
The US Climate Action Center are essentially huge inflatable domes, just outside the UN jurisdiction of the Bula Zone.
Typically, the US sets up a prominent US Center at COPs – hosting side events on climate research and renewable technology from agencies such as NASA. Unfortunately, in the first year of the Trump administration, it is the first time there will not be an official US Center. Instead, there will be a side-event officially promoting the use of “clean coal”, natural gas and nuclear energy. The reaction has obviously been of disgust and opposition. Some of the strongest response has been from the We Are Still In movement at the US Climate Action Center. The movement is a signal to the world that America’s citizens, cities, states, and businesses are still moving forward with climate action and committing to the Paris Agreement when President Trump won’t.
Of course, it wouldn’t be American if it wasn’t over the top
At the launch of America’s Pledge, a coalition of cities, states and businesses committed to the Paris Agreement, Michael Bloomberg who is the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change, said, “The American government may have pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but the American people are committed to its goals – and there is nothing Washington can do to stop us.”
While the US is very rarely a good example at COPs, it illustrates the role of non-party actors in the fight against climate change. In a separate event featuring the US People’s Delegation, comprising individuals and CSO’s fighting climate change on the ground, I saw many passionate and emotional pleas for immediate action and opposition to the American federal government’s position.
Former New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, delivering his speech at the launch of his foundation’s project called America’s Pledge.
The importance of non-party actors in the fight to get to the goal of 1.5°C cannot be overstated. Yes, the UNFCCC and COP are Party-driven meetings, however, individuals, coalitions, cities and states have the power to act on climate change and make a difference. At the end of the day, the language around the texts that come out of COPs are loose and don’t draw a hardline on countries to act. On several occasions, we have seen the aspect of Nationally Determined Manner introduced and reiterated, especially in relation to NDCs in the Paris Agreement. This means that a country can act in response to climate change in any way it sees appropriate and is not strictly mandated to act in a certain way. This results in the ability for countries to get away with loose actions on climate change.
Varshini Prakash from SustainUS and the US People’s Delegation takes the stage.
Non-party actors are clearly mentioned in the Paris Agreement and I believe they will continue to play a huge part in our collective drive for 1.5°C. Individuals, businesses, cities and states are the foundations of countries where emissions are produced, which means some of the power to curb the emissions and act on climate change. The UNFCCC process and COPs are huge conference at the highest of international levels, which can make you feel very small and inconsequential, but just remember that each person in the fabric of society can play a part, no matter how small or large, no matter how local or international.
Written by Mike
Edited by Varun
![To enter or not to enter: it depends on your ticket]()
by admin | Nov 16, 2017 | #MYD, MYD2017, UNFCCC
As I was entering the closed meeting I was supposed to go, I noticed that several observers were blocked outside. After the parties were ready, the co-facilitators asked them if they would like to allow observers to enter the room. Although none of the sessions I went banned the entrance for observers, it was still astonishing to witness the limited access civil service organization conference, which had a vision to be inclusive.
The view from the observer’s seat at the last row.
On 10 November 2017, the APA Co-chair had a dialogue with the observer organizations. The dialogue was supposed to allow representatives from different constituencies to bring up their concerns pertaining to the negotiations that have been going on for the past week. The co-chair started the session by reiterating the need of observers being in the negotiation room as they were experts in their respective field. The co-chair then stresses that all meetings of the APA continue to be open to all observers, which from my experience so far, was true. I have never been blocked access or seen anyone with a yellow badge and ticket being blocked. However, I do believe that the ticketing process was a buffer system that limited the participation of the observers.
For the same reason, during the session, a representative from TWYCC brought up the problem of ticketing system on behalf of YOUNGO (representatives from RINGO and the Women and Gender Group also brought up similar issues). Currently, the observers will be blocked outside until parties have been seated and the session started. To that, the co-chairs responded by saying that they want to ensure that there is sufficient space for the parties while also allowing space for experts. Although I understand where they are coming from, I don’t see how this was a sufficient reason to make the observers wait until the delegates who were late (since they need to run in from other meetings) to enter the room.
Also, the ticketing system limits the number of representatives that could be sent to a certain meeting. For example, YOUNGO only has two tickets for each agenda items (those that are open for observers only). These arrangements often create disagreement within the constituencies when there are more than two people who are interested in the same topic. YOUNGO tries to give everyone a chance to attend by diversifying the people who get the ticket. But this only creates another issue of the lack of specialization in the negotiation tracking process. The co-chairs also acknowledged that this is an issue, but no concrete solution was provided during the session. I was rather disappointed by that because it is a contradiction of what they were stressing in the beginning of the session.
The co-chairs did reassure the importance of an observer’s role by stating “You may not be negotiating the words but you are the interface between the negotiators and the rest of the world,”. But beautiful words itself is inadequate, decisions need to be made to increase the accessibility of observers. And as of today, observers still face a lot of systemic barriers in the negotiation room.
Written by Xiandi
Edited by Varun
