The Asia Pacific Climate Week (APCW) 2018 opened with a strong pro-business and private sector sentiment. A number of heavy weights sat on the opening panel: Patricia Espinosa, Luke Daunivalu, Masagos Zulkifli, President Michal Kurtyka, Bambang Susantono. Steve Chao moderated the session. The importance of a business and private finance solution to climate change was well highlighted by the presence of such individuals.
The rhetoric among the speakers on the panel and also subsequent ones, stressed highly on the need for private finance, investments and the engagement and evolution of the business industry. The need for increased ambition by these sectors and more finance poured into addressing climate change was emphasized upon.
Singapore’s Environment Minister Masagos Zulkifli was the first of the panel. He started with an appeal to emotion and enhanced action by narrating the disasters that have been happening in the region including the ongoing flood in Japan that has claimed almost 200 lives as of then. Then, he stressed the importance of trade and the need to keep global systems open and made the age old call for urgency and the spurring of global climate action.
He highlighted innovation and collaboration as two important thrusts towards achieving a low carbon future. Certainly the image of Singapore is also based on this. Then he announced that Singapore plans to implement a carbon tax starting at 5 dollars for every tonne of greenhouse gas emitted.
“No exception!” he exclaimed.
He also reinforced that the integrity of the Paris Agreement needs to be preserved, which was somewhat ironic given that a petrochemical company was one of the platinum sponsors of this APCW.
Following him was the Executive Director of the UNFCCC, Patricia Espinosa. She brought up the need for carbon forums to be more inclusive of input from different groups of people. She also called for more action on climate change using a personal story to evoke emotion in the people. She narrated her visit to Tuvalu. At a visit to a primary school she had been ‘deeply moved’ by how the children were aware of and had to deal with the floods. It would be great if more high ranking individuals were ‘deeply moved’ by such sights so that they would persuade governments and important businesses to increase ambition.
She listed a number of things that should be done: All levels of government need to be involved. The PA work program needed to be finalised, firm commitments should be made by countries to increase climate ambition by 2020, proper financing should be provided by developed countries and they should honour their promises. She also highlighted the inadequacy of current finances,
“the global community is talking in millions and billions, but it should be trillions.”
She compared financing climate change with current finances to walking into a category 5 hurricane protected only by an umbrella. Ms Espinosa presented climate change as an unprecedented opportunity instead of an unprecedented challenge. All in all it is a dire picture, our current rate of addressing climate change.
Luke Daunivalu followed after Ms Espinosa. He stressed the importance of climate leadership at all levels: government, grassroots and the private sector. One key point he mentioned that I found particularly interesting was how he stressed on leadership that is feasible and heard by the international community. Presumably he is referring to his own. What I took away from his implications is that it is important for leadership to be mindful and inclusive of counter agendas but also one that is inspirational and significant enough to make a difference in the international community. He reiterated the importance of the Talanoa dialogue and how we need to share our stories and followed up by saying that we need to move beyond rhetoric, towards action.
Subsequently the next President designate of COP24, President Michal Kurtyka of Poland took the podium. He reinforced the messages of the previous panelists, picking up on Masagos’ idea of innovation and innovative leadership. He then praised the EU’s goal of a 40% reduction of carbon emissions. Another ironic statement, considering earlier on, Poland had protested against being assigned a portion of the intended distribution. Specifically, it had been assigned a 7% reduction in overall emissions, a percentage somewhat proportionate to its contribution to the EU’s total emissions. Given that Poland is organising the upcoming COP, it would have been a good show of faith if the president could have committed to actions that move it away from being a coal powered nation and announced policies to encourage renewable energy. As of now, more than 90% of Poland’s electricity comes from lignite and coal.
Bambang Susantono from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) wrapped up the panel. He outlined measures the ADB was undertaking with respects to climate change such as how it has been supporting the Asian Carbon Forum. One of the ADB’s seven operational strategies is also tackling climate change. He mentioned how the Asia Pacific is home to more than 60% of the population and emits 40% of total output of green house gases. Seven of the top 10 vulnerable countries are also located in the region. He issued a warning that climate change will reverse the benefits of economic development in the region. He moved on to the progress ADB has made in mobilising finance for addressing climate change and how they are working with countries to help them transform Nationally Determined Contributions into climate investment plans.
Strategies to Reach Scale: Adaptation and Climate Resilient Initiatives in Coastal Zones
The coast is a battle zone. Coastal communities all over have to fight to survive against rising sea levels, worsening typhoons, depleting fish stocks and ocean acidification. That makes them one of the more vulnerable communities to climate change. At the recent Asia Pacific Climate Week that took place in July in Singapore, coastal zone climate initiatives got its own discussion session. A panel sat down to talk about “Strategies to Reach Scale: Adaptation and Climate Resilient Initiatives in Coastal Zones”.
The panel featuredYoussef Nassef, Director of Adaptation, UNFCCC; Singapore Red Cross secretary-general Benjamin Williams, Andi Eka Salva, Ms Rima Al-Azar Senior Natural Resources Officer from the Climate and Environment Division of the FAO,Stefanos Fotiou, Director for Environment and Development at UNESCAP and the UNFCCC High-level Champion Tomasz Chruszczow.
Community led adaptation and mitigation measures are important in coastal zones. This is for a variety of reasons such as:
They can respond flexibly to disasters,
Their knowledge of local issues is advantageous in such situations,
They can be more efficient than a government or an international NGO in many instances and
Their solutions can be very unique and suited to their context.
The panel was asked to share some innovative models from communities in coastal zones that have managed to achieve a large impact. While they did not quite manage to share on these (perhaps a reflection of the general lack of attention on ground up initiatives) they each spoke of coastal adaptation and mitigation measures in their own contexts.
Benjamin Williams talked about the Redcross’ Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA). The tool aims to enable local priorities to be identified and appropriate action taken to reduce disaster risk.
Mr Williams also stressed on the importance of finance in adapting coastal communities for climate change resilience as well as in disaster risk responses. The financing model needs to improve to take an integrated approach to addressing climate change issues by involving all relevant partners, across geographic and type boundaries.
Andi Eka Salva talked about a variety of conditions needed for effective adaptation and mitigation in coastal communities. These included early warning systems, timeliness in response and building literacy among communities regarding such measures. This is so that they will be prepared to aid and respond to such problems. For example, teaching farmers how to collect data.
He also emphasised on the importance of youth involvement in scaling up coastal climate change adaptation and mitigation measures. Forest fire and tsunami response education should be adapted into suitable mediums for children. In order to engage with the younger generation, he stated that there is a need to adapt to using their language and technology. In line with the principle of intergenerational equity, this is an area that should be given more focus in general. There is a lack of involvement and consideration of the future generations in climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Stefanos Fotiou referenced the 1991 publication by John Clarke as a good guidebook on integrated coastal management. The guidebook puts out 17 different activities that can be taken in coastal zones. He also noted that participation is an important factor for the Small Island Developing States.
Ms Rima Al-Azar focused in on the context: that 3.1 billion people around the world live within 10km of the coast. Coastal zones also have large implications for countries given that 84% of NDCs and INDCs mention aquaculture and fisheries as important.
She made a distinction between scaling up vs scaling out: up has not been as successful and that we are still at the pilot stage of scaling out. Better vertical and horizontal coordination and integration management is needed to address this. And this needs to be paired with a greater awareness about this issue.
Youssef Nassef also highlighted that coastal zones are important areas of focus for the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage. This Mechanism addresses climate induced loss and damage. These could be extreme events or slow onset events.
He reiterated that developing countries in particular are vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. There should be more contingent measures such as insurance and innovative finance. It must be noted however, that insurance is a controversial solution. This stems from the international negotiations where developed countries were careful to address the issue of loss and damage as one that does not provide a basis for any liability or compensation. Therefore insurance was brought up as the alternative.
However many CSOs highlight the unfairness of expecting poor, vulnerable communities in developing countries to bear the costs of climate change disasters when they have disproportionately smaller greenhouse gas emissions.
EnviroNewsNigeria: Tomasz Chruszczow, Special Envoy for Climate Change from Poland
Tomasz Chruszczow spoke on how adaptation measures need to be integrated into general development planning in the countries. There is potential here for synergy between the Sustainable Development Goals and climate change when making national infrastructure, education and development plans. He highlighted an obstacle to adaptation which was that it is difficult to measure and there is no standardised system for this.
Day 2 of SB48-2: Negotiations in APA, SBI and SBSTA moving into informal consultations and informal informals
As the Bangkok climate negotiations kicked off yesterday, it became clear very quickly that parties, for the next week, will be saying the same thing. From the opening ceremony, to the plenaries, to the contact groups as well as the informal consultations, almost all chairs, facilitators and parties started their interventions with similar themes; we’re running out of time, we should not waste any more time now, and we must leave Bangkok with a draft text to bring to COP24.
Parties are so eager to get straight to work, that they proposed and agreed to forgo the opening plenary interventions from parties as well as CSOs. While it is clear to see why parties chose this course of impromptu action, several Youth CSO representatives did not appreciate the decision to cut out one of only two opportunities for CSOs to speak at this SB session.
While parties continue to reiterate the need to move fast with negotiations in Bangkok, CSOs are calling for parties not just to move swiftly but also to produce a strong and robust draft text for each facet of the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP). The hope and expectation is to head into COP24 with draft texts that will be ready to be negotiated on in Katowice, Poland.
What does it mean to have draft negotiating texts coming out of Bangkok?
Currently, agenda items relating to the PAWP are being negotiated on the basis of informal notes and tools which have been drafted by the respective facilitators of each agenda item. These informal notes and tools contain inputs from parties from the past several sessions, dating back to SB44 in May 2016. The task ahead of parties in Bangkok is to distill the inputs and streamline the options with clearer and meaty text.
With stronger and more focused text coming out of Bangkok, the hope is that it will facilitate a good session of high level negotiations at COP24, with the ultimate goal of completing the PAWP by the December 2018 deadline.
What are the potential risks in Bangkok?
While it is promising and encouraging that parties see the urgency and feel the pressure, they also run the risk of pushing out draft texts that are weak. On the other hand, should parties take their time to negotiate, or come across stumbling blocks, they run the risk of ending the Bangkok session with incomplete draft texts.
Either option is unacceptable. And parties have no other choice than to work in overdrive. The current situation was perfectly captured in the opening address by COP23 President and Fiji Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama, who said, “In three months’ time we will be in Katowice, and frankly, we are not ready. I don’t think that statement should surprise anyone in this room.”
Although discouraging, the COP23 President’s words were necessary. He told it like it is. The situation is dire now. Parties have left it all to the last minute and need to find as much common ground as possible over the next four days if we are to get any closer to implementing the Paris Agreement in 2020.
MYD is currently tracking the negotiations on the Paris Agreement Work Programme
United Nations Conference Center in Bangkok Pic: UNFCCC
UNFCCC climate negotiations resumed today in Bangkok, kicking off with opening plenaries for SBSTA 48-2, SBI 48-2 and APA 1-6. But why are we in Bangkok?
In a typical year, intersessional negotiations are held in Bonn between COPs. These additional sessions allow for negotiations to take place in the subsidiary bodies, namely SBSTA, SBI and APA. This year a second intersessional conference has been organized in Bangkok due to the urgent nature of having to complete the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PA) by the end of 2018.
Since parties adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015, they have been working on drafting guidelines to implement and operationalize the PA, beginning in 2020. With that deadline approaching quickly, parties are feeling the pressure to deliver texts to be negotiated and agreed on at COP24 in Katowice this December.
While this session in Bangkok is the result of the inability of parties to come to a definitive negotiation text at the last intersessional in May, the parties have also displayed the willingness and motivation to complete the PAWP on time.
10 MYD members are in Bangkok, tracking the negotiations at SB48-2
So what needs to be done in Bangkok?
As negotiations in SBSTA, SBI and APA get underway today, parties will only be discussing agenda items relating to the PAWP. This is so that there can be a strict focus on the most pressing issues that are holding back its completion. The absence of side events and UNFCCC-sanctioned actions at this session further stresses the importance of making complete and strong progress on the negotiations on the PAWP.
Finance is proving to be one of the crucial issues that will be negotiated here, specifically in SBI agenda item 15, relating to Article 9.5, which calls for developed countries to provide adequate information on a roadmap of potential financial contributions, as well as SBSTA agenda item 13, relating to Article 9.7, the modalities for the accounting of financial contributions provided and mobilized. There is the expectation that the African group will continue to ask for more robust text on Art. 9.5, something they have been adamant about since COP23 last year.
Finance is going to be key as it is most commonly seen as a factor in building trust. With higher financial flows, or even commitments to providing more quantitative and qualitative information on potential funds in the future, it would go a long way in galvanizing parties from both developing and developed nations to push for higher ambitions.
NDC enhancement will also be negotiated this week, with features and the accounting of NDCs, yet to be agreed on. Along with that, there is a question mark on the general timeline of NDC periods. Agreeing on these common timeframes around the submission and reporting of NDCs over a short interval of five years is crucial to opening up transparency on the collective contributions of all parties and will better push for stronger ambition in each iteration of NDCs.
The one thing I’ve noticed today, however, is the lack of follow through in the themes from COP23 specifically global stocktake (GST) and the Talanoa Dialogue. A lack of emphasis on GST may be a result of good and timely negotiations in May, however, the Talanoa Dialogue is more important than ever. The process, which involves collecting stories from parties, CSOs, and non-party stakeholders, is meant to build understanding and boost ambition for stronger climate action. It is still underway and should last until COP24 where it should see some sort of political input. If not, this all will be have been for nothing.
Lastly, where does Loss & Damage sit within this Bangkok session? All parties are scrambling to complete the PAWP in time and it feels as if L&D is being left behind. It’s been reiterated by many that the PAWP should be inclusive and an all-round package. No one stream should take precedence over the other. With L&D being tied to the WIM, it will be interesting to see how it fits into the PAWP.
All I can hope for, as we begin the week, is that parties do not waste time and start serious work in completing the PAWP in time to facilitate good negotiations and a decision in COP24. If not, we run the risk of accepting very loose and weak text should we run out of time at the end of this week. And that would just be doing a disservice to the Paris Agreement and its adoption three years ago.
Written by Mike Campton Peer reviewed by Daniel Teoh
Indigenous peoples (IPs), defined by Indigenous Survival International are “distinct cultural communities with unique land and other rights based on historical use and occupancy… whose cultures, economies and identities are inextricably tied to their traditional lands and resources”. They are self-defined as descendants of original inhabitants which share strong spiritual and economic attachment. With the vast majority of them in the Asian region, they may also be referred to as tribal people, hill tribes etc.
During the second seminar in Taiwan, Dr. Ian Fry, Ambassador for Climate Change and Environment, Government of Tuvalu and Lecturer of Australian National University explained about negotiating for the indigenous people’s rights in the climate change process. The question remains: how do we identify indigenous peoples from others? Seeing as not all countries are part of the UN negotiation. As stated in Rio+20, the participation of IPs are important for sustainable development in the global, regional, national, and subnational implementation.
Sometimes when we think we are producing clean energy, but indirectly it is actually destroying the IPs land. The hydro dams for example flood villages are destroying farmlands and hunting grounds and disrupting fishing patterns for IPs.
Agonisingly, IPs are greatly impacted from climate change, for instance, the melting of glaciers, permafrost in Alaska (where there is an increase in methane due to this process), severe drought in Africa and also an increase of temperature which has caused coral bleaching in the Pacific. Fortunately, IPs adapt to climate change as they work as herders, fishers, and hunters for their livelihood. With their collective knowledge, they are observant enough to see any tiny changes in water cycles, wildlife, soil, and weather.
Hence, IPs have key demands to protect their own rights of which we should consider. Recognition of their rights: rights of nature, promotion of development in harmony with nature, balancing ancestral knowledge and development as well as finally identifying priorities to address climate change. Consequently, Dr. Ian Fry provided the attendees with some tips for finding trade-offs alongside relevant examples to be practiced in the negotiation process.
Use an exception – creating special situations for disadvantaged countries. Example: All countries have to reduce their emissions except Least Developed Countries
Create a narrow start – having limited obligations at the beginning to develop points over time. Example: Limit restrictions to only ten chemicals
Offer a broad brush approach – apply general rules to everyone. Example: All countries should develop adaptation plans
Provide a compensation clause – create restrictions on an action but compensate poorer or disadvantaged countries for taking actions. Example: Countries that stop the use of CFCs will be given funding and the transfer of technology without patents to allow the use of other chemicals
Imperatively, slippery negotiating words like as appropriate, if appropriate, as necessary, if necessary give discretion to a country to decide whether an action is appropriate or not. Words like consider allow countries to think about it further and not necessarily make a decision. Another three essential words that change a statement are may (optional requirement, at the discretion of the party), should (an obligation created, but not compulsory) and shall (compulsory requirement).
It is also critical to invest time to know the issues we are dealing with, hear what others have to say, demonstrate respect for negotiating partners, show patience, show polite assertiveness, gain support of others and be inclusive, use language sensitively, understand the negotiating language, find common ground, accentuate the positive, handle pressure, know when to trade, lock-in agreements, and ultimately, to refrain from giving in early.
In a nutshell, the new UN platform will enable LCIPs to have an active role in shaping the process of climate change adaptation in a holistic and integrative manner.
Written by Liyana binti Yamin
Edited by Renee
The Indo-Pacific and Southeast Asia Seminar on Climate Change was hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Taiwan and coordinated by National Tsing Hua University. Malaysia Youth Delegation (MYD) was honoured to be invited and hosted by the generosity of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Malaysia.
“We need them, and they need us to move forward”, Mr. Carlos Fuller
Mr. Carlos’s sentence lingered in my mind for till now. The fact that indigenous people and local communities held the knowledge and traditional practices in a holistic manner to combat climate change, it matters more for us to help strengthen their effort to establish the platform of knowledge exchange. The first seminar topic was on Local Communities and Indigenous People in the UNFCCC Process. Mr. Carlos Fuller, who was the Former Chair to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), explained the issue extensively with examples.
UNESCO plays a vital role to protecting and supporting to the indigenous people. Also, Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has an ad hoc working group for the implementation of article 8J to respect, preserve and maintain the traditional knowledge and lifestyle of the indigenous people.
In addition, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which was adopted in 2007 established a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to the specific situation of indigenous peoples. There is also the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) which acts as a task force to promote effective engagement with indigenous and local knowledge holders in all relevant aspects of its work.
Local Communities and Indigenous People (LCIPs) have been involved in environmental processes ever since the United Nations discussion in Rio 1992. Principle 22 mentions that LCIPs plays a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. Additionally, the Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change (IIPFCC), an association that act as the caucus of interest in UNFCCC negotiating process have a unifying voice among all countries aims to make the powerful push to meet the demands of smaller developing states. Unfortunately, IIPFCC is yet to be acknowledged as an admitted observer organisation under UNFCCC. Among the current issues argued on indigenous people and local communities are stated as below:
There are still no clear-cut on the definition of the indigenous people and local communities.
No permanent/temporary working group
Mode of work through consensus/majority/observers are still undefined
Geographic borders to identify indigenous people might be a problem as some are nomadic.
Validation of indigenous people and local community knowledge.
Local communities have no established organisation
Despite the various recognised rights of the IPs, the previous COP23 has only “noted” adoption of DRIPS. A platform for knowledge which functions to be a facilitative workgroup for climate policies and action and capacity for engagement should be established. As declared in Article 16 of UNDRIP, indigenous people are free to access to non-indigenous media to advertise their own media in their own language without any discrimination.
By understanding the core principles of indigenous people and local communities: full participation, given equal status, self-selection, and adequate funding for them will enable recognition of their rights and interests. As suggested by Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the guide to solidify the platform is by:
Through an incremental approach to ensure effective operationalisation
Dual leadership role.
Open multi-stakeholder
For the upcoming COP24, a draft decision has been made to solidify the plan. Establishing a facilitative working group will be discussed whether to make it permanent or temporary. The mode of work, membership and work plan for LCIP will still be a concern as there may be a conflict of interest. However, it is always good to reflect back on previous agreements with no “cherry picking”.
In conclusion, indigenous people and local communities play an essential role in UNFCCC process to be protected. Having an operationalised platform for LCIPs, it can provide a space to exchange of experience of the best practices, enable their engagement in UNFCCC and other relevant processes, also allowing integration of the knowledge respecting the systems to be communicated into climate change agenda.
Written by Liyana binti Yamin
Edited by Varun
The Indo-Pacific and Southeast Asia Seminar on Climate Change was hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA), Taiwan and coordinated by National Tsing Hua University. Malaysia Youth Delegation (MYD) was honoured to be invited and hosted by the generosity of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Malaysia.
On the first day of the Asia Pacific Carbon Week 2018, I attended a panel titled “Transport in Cities – Parties and Non-Party Stakeholders Working Together to Deliver Low Carbon Urban Mobility”. The panel was straightforward in its presentation, delivering technological solutions that have tackled urban mobility challenges. However, I found myself thinking about the core of change in the context of climate action throughout the session, something that many sessions failed to address during the APCW.
When we think about the main culprits behind climate change (I am talking sectors, not people), we think energy usage, food production, fossil fuel burning, etc. What we neglect to discuss are our everyday actions that drive the main climate change contributors. Climate action is a tough-sell because many people cannot relate to the subject matter as climate change implications take time to impact individuals directly. The lack of empathy is compounded by the call for climate action causing behavioral change. Who would want to give up the comfort of their air-conditioned homes to cut their carbon footprints down by a little? I say no way. But how would it be should policies catalyze the behavioral change? It would definitely be a different story because the population will then be motivated to make the most economic choices.
In the urban transportation context, the panel reaffirmed that good policy will make good changes. Cities hold a great density of everything – people, services, culture, economic activity, accessibility, and more. These elements that constitute a city are intrinsically linked. That is why city management is a grand task, because one policy always affects another. Some institutions and governments recognize cities as grounds (literally) for policy experiments. Take China’s pilot programs on carbon emission trading and London’s efforts in redesigning transportation corridors. None of them are guaranteed successes, but in return for risk, new policy strategies are unveiled.
Thinking in terms of the energy usage and the resulting emission in urban areas, transportation is a big driver of climate change. The transportation industry itself already produces approximately 23% of the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel combustion.[1] Although urban greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions fluctuate depending on population, density, infrastructure and stages of development, we can link city growth to increased transportation and increased GHG emissions. A 2009 World Bank study of seventeen sample cities have shown that the increased GHG emissions are linked to increased urban transport energy use.[2] In the Asia-Pacific region alone, urban areas are home to 60% of the world’s urban population.[3]Estimates have projected that the region’s urban population will grow to 1 billion people, or two-thirds of the region’s population. With a growing population, the demand for transportation increases because, as panelist Ms. Talya Romano from SloCaT put it “everybody needs to be at places and everybody needs to commute”. The questions that follow the phenomenon then become these: how can we scale up transportation and do it in a way that doesn’t amplify climate change contributions?
Mr. Mohamed Mezghani, Secretary General from the International Association for Public Transport (UITP) emphasized that traditional infrastructures for car usage cannot meet the growing demand of transportation, especially since the current management cost of infrastructure is approximately 10% of a nation’s GDP. He mentioned that this problem presents an opportunity to shift the traditional system of cars and decarbonize urban transport systems. Per population head, public transportation usage emits 30 – 40% less emissions compared to car usage. He listed compact planning and transportation development as a solution, but these are low hanging fruits. The real challenge to get countries to commit to low carbon development in the long term.
The discussion continued as Ms. Dechen Tsering, Regional Director of UN Environment in Asia and the Pacific, talked about the potential of climate action that comes with decarbonizing urban transportation systems. She mentioned that regional governance should take the opportunity to engage with more private and public companies and stakeholders to achieve Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). NDCs have important 2020 emission targets, and rethinking urban transportation acts as a well-established solution. Ms. Tsering called for more political will in translating clearer action plans and having concrete goals in getting to their NDCs. She gave an example of some Southeast Asian cities having measures to address the emission of black carbon particulate matters, but fail to engage with private sectors to hold them accountable and involve them in the effort to decarbonize cities. According to Ms. Tsering, cities need to think more in order to remain the level of ambition going forward with decarbonization.
Mr. Thani Ahmed Al Zeyoudi, the Minister of Climate Change and the Environment of the UAE, shared with the crowd some of the steps that the UAE has taken in supporting long term decarbonization of urban transportation. According to Mr. Al Zeyoudi, the UAE chose to concentrate on decreasing emissions of existing vehicles on the road. For example, they have rolled out new fuel-efficient public buses that have decreased carbon footprints. In addition, fuel prices and subsidies have been adjusted to favor fuel-efficient vehicles. As a country, they have also participated in South-South technological transfers. The ministry is currently engaged in project grants worth USD $30 million in a number of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to build capacity on climate adaptation.
The panel’s private sector representatives, Mr. Eric Grab, Vice President of the Strategic Anticipation, Innovation and Sustainable Development at Michelin, and Mr. Sun Muqian, Chairman of TAILG, highlighted some of the roles their companies have played in moving towards NDCs’ urban decarbonization goals. Mr. Grab mentioned that his department is currently working under the Transport Decarbonisation Alliance (TDA), launched as part of COP 23’s Transport Day in 2017, to accelerate the transition to an overall net-zero emission economy. Michelin’s strategy is to identify and share best practices, develop synergies between the 3Cs (country, cities and regions), and advocate for transport decarbonization in high political level discussions. Mr. Grab highlighted that his department identifies market trends and economically viable projects to invest in, focusing on bringing suitable technologies to the market. On the other hand, Mr Muqian, whose company is based in China, highlighted the role of governmental policies in catalyzing green vehicles. TAILG is a UN Environment Programme (UNEP) partner, specializing in promoting electricity powered vehicles. They are currently operating their pilot programs in eight countries, of which three are in Asia (the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). Among the ten solutions their company has put forward, they emphasize on streamlining guidelines of green vehicle transitions on the national level and local level. With the strong support of the Chinese government behind the rise of green technology in the past decade, it is no surprise that these are the solutions TAILG is advocating for, because the centralized focus works.
Ms. Talya Romano, the Chief Operating Officer from SLoCaT, closed the panel session with a strong message on sustainable transportation as the future. She calls to attention the need for cost-effective and accessible transportation. Climate change mitigation solutions today are marketed for people who can afford them. In order to achieve climate justice for the present and future generations, everyone should be able to make the most economic choices equally. Another message that Ms. Romano shared with the crowd was about cooperation. Civil society, NGOs and Academia are the people who know what we need and what we want. If there is a continuous gap between the government, private sector, and civil society, it would be difficult to reach the NDCs before the deadline. Ms. Romano turns to the scalable solutions and projects that have been tested and proven as of today, and reaffirms that we can make urban transportation convenient and sustainable. All we need is a little more willpower to set us off in the right direction.
Can Blockchain Save the Planet?
It’s 5:15pm, Day 2 of the Asia Pacific Climate Week (APCW 2018), and my brain has already hit a critical point of information overload. In the midst of sipping on black tea and recovering from a quick social media huddle, my colleague came over, pointed to his left and mouthed one word “blockchain”.
Blockchain?
What is that?
My curiosity peaked. After a quick skim of the program and feeling the caffeine creeping to my head, I found myself rushing to Virgo 2 (name of room) to attend a session that I knew nothing about.
Joseph Pallant of Blockchain for Climate
The projector displayed an impressive title, “Digitising Sustainability: Blockchain for Climate Action”, with a panel of six sitting in front of the screen. Mr. Joseph Pallant, the founder and executive director of Blockchain for Climate opened the session with a concise address on how blockchain can save the planet.
Blockchain, I learned, was a digital tool we could use to “perform rigorous projects and close the loop of turning stuff into offsets”. Being distant from developments in the technology sector, I took a quick trip to the google-verse to read up on the hype behind blockchain. Having scoured through at least ten separate sites, I do see how and why blockchain could save the planet.
Blockchain is a database that is constantly updated and verified by users, in a mutual distributed network. Data is stored as blocks and the blocks are chained each other, creating an ever-growing list.[1] The chains are a form of cryptographic measure, and each consequent block contains a timestamp and transaction data of the former block. The cryptographic hash means that network members can surveil the records, ensuring that the information shared is transparent.
Once the data in blocks have been recorded, they cannot be altered without the consent of network peers. What makes the technology reliable is its five principles – distributed database, peer-to-peer transmission, transparency with pseudonymity, irreversibility of records, and computation logic.[2] Since its launch in 2008, blockchain technology has been used as public ledgers for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, smart contracts, banking ledgers, and more.
According to Mr. Pierre Rousseau, Senior Strategic Advisor of Sustainable Business from BNP Paribas, the technology will revolutionize carbon trading because now the issuers, traders and brokers have access to same information, cutting out the middle man and allowing free market forces to act at full force. What the technology entails is the centralized systems like energy systems may no longer be beyond our reach. Having a blockchain market will give people a choice in their power sources. They may even sell their surplus power generated from their own roof-top solar panels.[3]
Jeffery Liu of Xarbon
Mr. Jeffery Liu, the founding partner of Xarbon Sustainability further elaborated on the importance of transparency in carbon trading. Like any market transaction, Mr. Liu explained, a unit may be double-counted and sold twice if we do not have visibility. Transaction can also be costly without the level of transparency blockchain offers because it requires due diligence and time. With cryptohash system, network peers are able to do their own due diligence. Having the right knowledge to correctly implement the system and build its infrastructure would not hurt either. For Ms. Deanna MacDonald, the CEO of BLOC, cryptocurrency in the blockchain system also offers “verified and valid assets that can be traded”, meaning that it has great liquidity.
So how does blockchain technology have a role in climate change mitigation? Now, the panel proceeded to let us in on the secret behind making climate action work – making the marriage between the UNFCCC standards and offset benefits work in our everyday lives. Turns out, mega projects are not hip anymore. All the resources and money could be better paid off when specialized and distributed to the masses.
Mr. Rousseau also mentioned that the future of climate financing will be ushered in by the support of climate action on a community level. In aggregate, small projects investors can be attracted and make a positive impact in climate action. An example would be facilitating clean energy trading between consumers. Consumers may conduct a transaction using digital assets within a market. The technology is also an improved carbon emission trading system, as mentioned before.
In China, IBM and Energy Blockchain Lab are developing a pilot platform to trade carbon assets.[4] Blockchain technology has also improved tracking of carbon credit transactions between companies and entities, as well as their emissions. With blockchains’ level of transparency, the technology may be used as a tool for the tracking and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and even implemented as part of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) monitoring process.
On official terms, the UN Climate Change secretariat initiated the creation of the Climate Chain Coalition (CCC) during the One Planet Summit on 12 December 2017 in Paris.[5] The CCC aims to explore the potential of distributed ledger technology (DLT) and blockchain technology in facilitating climate action. Among the coalition’s principles and values, CCC members state their intent to align with the long-term goals of the Paris Agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The members’ charter also addresses collaboration, technology neutrality, standardization and dissemination of benefits.
However, there was no clear verbiage on supporting the mobilization green finance, especially on making the technology, incentives and solutions available to the hardest-hit communities. Sure, DLT and blockchain technology is a great way forward, but it does not provide a sustainable method to bridge the gap between the right solutions and delivering them to the right problems. However, I have to note that the panel was presented in the point of view where blockchain technology can be mobilized for offsets for mostly Annex I countries, particularly in the talk of blockchain being used in the future to monitor the International Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) that is listed Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement.[6]
Deanna MacDonald of BLOC
That said, blockchain is still in its nascent stage and there are a number of obstacles in the way of becoming a ready solution. Ms. MacDonald mentioned that as an emerging technology, there are no real regulations on a global scale. There is also no single system to go with, and until the network has inter-operability, people will have to learn to navigate through different operating platforms. Ms. MacDonald also brought up a great point about disintermediation and avoiding, with the lack of better paraphrasing, the “crap in crap out problem”. As mentioned earlier on in the article, an advantage of blockchain technology is its ability to get rid of the middle man.
Contrary to that, Ms. MacDonald believes that the sources of offset projects are still the actors in the supply chain. The digital realm still needs to rely on eyes on the ground to source “products” and make sure that these “products” are well-integrated into the system for consumption, which brings us to the problem of capacity building. Mr. Liu adds on by saying that data can only be stored “trustlessly” when implemented properly, meaning that the system will still be imperfect because offline data still requires oracles.
For a new technology, its plans to tackle the Paris Agreement head-on seem to be ambitious – for most of the world does not have the technical knowledge and infrastructural capacity to mobilize their personal participation. When asked about actions that will generate most impact to change, Mr. Liu quips in that it is not entirely up to regulation but it is about behavioral change. He believes that the success of blockchain technology in climate action depends on how the technology is marketed.
Using the diamond as an anecdote, as long as blockchain is marketed as a premium tool that you have to be informed to access, consumers will want it. Ms. MacDonald responded by pointing to the market mechanisms to make blockchain a viable consumer case. “Money makes it happen” she stated.
As the panel wraps up, I was left thinking, was this just another promise plug? Seems like it. I was not convinced by the excessive optimism sprinkled on by the moderator’s closing remarks on blockchain bringing capital, resources, and information all together.
Combing through my notes, I came across an uncredited set of bullet points with the message from a panelist – “We need to be realistic. It’s going to take time, money, (and) dead ends. We need to go in to provide the proof. We have the responsibility to define the problem”. Perhaps that is what it takes for blockchain to be a verified solution – a little more time, money and proof.
On the third day of the Asia Pacific Climate Week 2018, the panels gave me an insight to job transitions moving forward in climate action! While I kid around with the introduction (my professors always tell me to write with a sense of style à la Pinker but practically), the panel was refreshing in a carbon forum packed with private and pitch-heavy sessions. The panel, moderated by Al Jazeera’s Senior Correspondent Steven Chao, discussed the socioeconomic implications as countries gravitate towards low emission sustainable development.
Economics 101 on labor discussed the different categories of unemployment – cyclical, structural, technical, seasonal, regional, classical, frictional, etc. Technical and structural unemployment are inevitable as industries make necessary changes to comply with new policy standards like energy compliances, and consumer behavioral shifts. Polish High Level Champion Mr. Tomasz Chruszczow called attention to the recognition of having just workforce transitions in the Paris Agreements, as noted in the preamble, Article 4.15, as well as 1/CP.21 and 11/CP.21. The main message was to make sure employees would be able to find decent work and quality jobs as changes occur. However, at the current pace of the Paris Agreements coming into reality, just transitions have not been addressed with a conceptual framework with action plans to account for the impacts on the workforce. Mr. Chruszczow reminded the audience as from panels before, that political buy-ins will be the tipping point for just transitions to happen.
Mr. Albert Magalang, the chief of the climate change division of the Environmental Management Bureau, Philippines, elaborated on the plans for just transitions. Addressing the new green jobs act, Mr. Magalang mentioned some of its salient features, which include offering decent work and building human capital, offering incentives to expand on relevant job skills, and emphasizing on active social dialogue in work spaces. Citing a recent overhaul of open-pit mining in the Philippines, the vulnerable workers are undergoing skill-expansion training to ease into related work fields. Similarly, Ms. Alysha Bagasra from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, talked about New Zealand’s newly established Just Transitions Department. New Zealand’s government recently announced their goal to transition to a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. The Just Transitions Department will aim to ensure “no one is left behind” and that policies will be related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). She notes that the economic transition will definitely generate new opportunities but would take away others in the short term.
Representing the civic society, Mr. Shoya Yoshida, the General Secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation Asia Pacific, emphasized that social dialogue will be the key in the endeavor to ensure just transitions. Approaching the issue from a community basis has its benefits, for decision makers will be able to identify the key lacks and wants from employers and employees. Mr. Yoshida also offered an interesting solution, which is to change the social culture in workplaces. In traditional Eastern Asian workspaces, there is a hierarchical arrangement of team “tasks”. “What is important is that employers recognize creativity of worker, and listen to them.” Ms Pamela Mar, Director of Supply Chain Futures and Sustainability, Fung Management, agrees with needing a change in work culture. The manufacturing industry in Asia is all about being big, cheap and efficient. Ms. Mar mentioned that the industry is undergoing large scale digitization, having seen major workshops cutting down human labor, like downsizing from 14,000 to 250 personnel in 18 months in Thailand. She looks to data as an important tool in employment transitions. “We should be using data to pinpoint and identify important issues people face when undergoing work transitions”. Former workplaces need to give workers relevant skills, so that when they leave the workforce, they still have relevant skill-set to the economy.
When moderator Mr. Chao asked who should be responsible for the just transitions, the panel gave mixed responses. Mr. Yoshida responded that companies should be held responsible for the wellbeing of their workers. He also believed that governments should plan for policy shifts that will create incentives for private companies to transition to digitization and invest in employees. Ms. Mar expressed that incentives for private companies are important but not as important as “changing the dialogue” of the workplace. Going back to the topic of Asian work culture, she stressed that the space should be collaborative enough for creative solutions to be proposed and carried out. With no communication between managers and employees, the wants and needs of both parties will not be communicated well. In the end, workers will be at loss. She also pointed out the need to have a reform in education, so that workers can come out with transferable skill-sets. Ms. Alysha chimed in that private and public sectors should start planning now, because convergence of digitization, climate policies, emission cuts, and more are happening very quickly. “We need to plan, manage and be aware of things that we do not necessarily predict to happen.” Just transitions can only happen if we start building the capacity to absorb the impacts of change today.
