Outreach at COP17 - 5 December 2011

inside: Are we on the way to an ambitious Durban adaptation package?

Incorporating gender considerations into the efficient use of climate policies

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

COP 17 | DAY 8 5 december 2011

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach

pic: Alec Reid

contents.

A weekend of unrest

2

On the way to an ambitious Durban adaptation package?

3

COP17 Side event calendar

3

Profile: Liane Schalatek

4

A Wave of the Future: International Linkage of Carbon Markets

6

Gender as a cross-cutting issue in the Green Climate Fund

8

“Technically speaking”, we have many reasons to protect health from climate change

10

A weekend of unrest

4

1

Whilst negotiations continued endlessly over the weekend in the ICC, the centre of Durban was brought to a standstill with over 6,000 protestors marching around the COP 17 conference limits.

Calling for world leaders to reach agreement in securing the Kyoto Protocol, the protestors handed over a memorandum to COP 17 President Maite NkoanaMashabane demanding action.

They fear that following the previous outcomes from COP 15 and COP 16, that COP 17 ‘will end up being just another talk shop’ and that a ‘barren COP’ would be a slap in face for Africa and the developing world. Speaking at the protests, Congress of the South African Trade

6

About Stakeholder Forum Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org

Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development.

Outreach is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena and has been produced at international meetings on the environment, including the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and at COP15 and COP16.

Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multistakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.

If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or Sabrina@sabrinachesterman.com) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachCOP17

8

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Georgie Macdonald

Stakeholder Forum

Sabrina Chesterman

Independent Climate Consultant

Sub-Editor

Kirsty Schneeberger

Stakeholder Forum

Design and Layout

Jodie Davies-Coleman

Independent Consultant

Online Design and Layout

Tom Harrisson

Stakeholder Forum

Co-Editors

Unions general secretary, Zwelinzima Vavi says: "We demand action and not tourism. This cannot be a world conference in which everybody came just to have a nice time.”

Following this, on Sunday Maite Nkoana-Mashabane spent the day at a Presbyterian church in the township of Umlazi in KwaZulu-Natal, praying for a positive outcome from the negotiations. During the Sunday sermon, members of the Khayelihle Congregation read testimonies by people from all over the world, describing their experiences with climate change.

On the way to an ambitious Durban adaptation package?

Economic and environmental recovery must go hand in hand – and we need to act now

OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:

COP 17 | DAY 8

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Timothy Bouley Ian Cheshire

Kingfisher

Sven Harmeling

Climate Action Network International (CAN)

Liane Schalatek

Heinrich Böll Foundation North America

Robert N. Stavins

Harvard University

Sven Harmeling Climate Action Network International (CAN) It is neither a secret nor a myth that Africa will be heavily affected by climate change. Therefore, there are high expectations that this African COP will deliver substantial progress in strengthening the international community’s approach towards adaptation. As in many other negotiation issues, the Cancún agreements already set the tasks for this year and for COP17.

Ideally the outcome would be a comprehensive adaptation package made up of a number of decisions, and underpinned by the perspective of new and additional financial support, which does not undermine the MDGs, but strengthens countries´ and communities´ resilience.

Of course in the long-run, the prospects for adapting successfully to anthropogenic climate change are dire if the world’s fossil fuel pyromania continues to fuel climate change rather than accelerating the global turn-around towards a low-carbon economy.

Therefore, progress on mitigation in Durban is as crucial. Adaptation negotiators were facing an extremely intense week, with several negotiating issues scattered across SBI, SBSTA, the LCA and even CMP. So where do we stand after this intense week, how close are we to a comprehensive Durban adaptation package?

There are four key issues on the agenda, the Work Programme on Loss and Damage and National Adaptation Plans (both under SBI), the Nairobi Work Programme (SBSTA) and the Adaptation Committee (AWG-LCA).

After intense discussions, the draft decision on the Work Programme on Loss and Damage was adopted on Saturday night. While the work programme was actually established in Cancún, it still had to be filled with specific activities and – ideally – a more concrete objective for an outcome by COP18. The decision reached was therefore quite am important

1

2

DAY 8 | COP 17 all this progress will have too little impact if it is not underpinned by substantial financial support for the activities as such, but also for adaptation finance in the mid- and long-term (and of course adequate mitigation).

step forward. In the three areas of the work programme (assessing the risk of loss and damage, considering a range of approaches and the role of the Convention), Parties agreed on a number of activities.

An expert meeting on the first area will be accompanied by a technical paper that will summarise current knowledge on relevant methodologies and will address data requirements.

In the second area, three regional level expert meetings and one event for small island developing states will be organised in 2012, which would allow a more differentiated view on the specific challenges in the regions. Furthermore, it was agreed that the Secretariat will prepare a technical paper on slowonset events. In the third area, addressing the role of the Convention, Parties and other stakeholders are invited to make submissions by September 2012 on the possible elements to be included in the recommendations for COP18.

This eventually leads to one of the most controversial aspects of the negotiations, whether to envisage for COP18 a concrete objective by which the negotiations could be steered. AOSIS repeatedly expressed the view that this should be the establishment of an international mechanism on loss and damage. Eventually, a compromise could be reached with the aim to explore a range of possible approaches and potential mechanisms, including an international mechanism, and elaborating on the different elements in the Cancun decision, which also included the idea of a Climate Risk Insurance Facility. This provides at least an idea of a potential element to which the work of the three areas could converge, without definitely prejudicing the outcome of COP18 but also without just concluding a loose set of activities.

The second successful area of work have been the negotiations on the next activities under the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Adaptation,

Vulnerability, which is being dealt with under SBSTA. Building on some activities already agreed at the last SB session in Bonn, it was agreed to hold technical workshops on water and climate change impacts and on ecosystem-based approaches to adaptation. Furthermore the Secretariat will prepare a compilation of case studies on national adaptation planning processes. Unfortunately, some more innovative outreach activities such as “training for trainers” workshops became lost.

Another key process initiated is that on the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which consists of two parts: first to enable Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to formulate and implement NAPs, and second to invite other developing countries to employ the same modalities nationally. Given the fact that there was little text to base its work on, a lot of time this week was devoted to this issue.

Unfortunately agreement could not yet be reached despite substantial progress and good technical discussions. A particular issue to be solved will be the adequate weight to be given to the modalities and support for non-LDC developing countries, as compared to the clear prioritisation that this process should entail for the LDCs. The Adaptation Committee will be subject to a more intense discussion this coming week. Key issues to resolve are the composition, which should also include a role for civil society as has been agreed for the Green Climate Fund. In addition to this is the relationship to the COP, where the Technology Executive Committee provides an interesting precedence as it is working directly under the COP, and the link of the Committee to the financial institutions.

Finally, all this progress will have too little impact if it is not underpinned by substantial financial support for the activities as such, but also for adaptation finance in the mid- and long-term (and of course adequate mitigation). The Green Climate Fund has to be set up and be filled with money as soon as possible. The development in the Adaptation Fund is quite concerning. The price decrease in the carbon markets has led to less revenues and no developed country has pledged new money in 2011. Therefore the current estimates for available budget until the end of 2012 is almost 20% lower than half year ago.

When ministers arrive here in Durban they have also the opportunity to counteract this negative trend and express their willingness for continued support for this innovative funding channel. A substantial outcome on adaptation is still possible. Let us hope that it will be part of an overall ambitious agreement.■

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Sven Harmeling is Team Leader International Climate Policy with Germanwatch and co-chair of the adaptation working group of Climate Action Network International (CAN).

COP17 Side Events Calendar Date

Title

COP 17 | DAY 8

Host

05/12/2011

The Business of Adaptation

Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL)

05/12/2011

Assessment of biodiversity, forest management, REDD+ links; the need for common data standards

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)

05/12/2011

Mobilising finance and investments for water security and climate resilience

Global Water Partnership Organisation (GWP), International Hydropower Association (IHA)

05/12/2011

Green Actions in China

China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Greenriver, Shan Shui Conservation Center (Shan Shui)

05/12/2011

China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change

China

06/11/2011

Launch of Momentum for Change Initiative

UNFCCC

06/12/2011

Payment for ecosystem services

Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL)

07/12/2011

Climate Finance in Arica from Pledge to Project: Can the Adaptation Fund be a Model?

Heinrich Böll Foundation and GermanWatch

07/12/2011

Food, Energy and Water for All: Lessons from WWF’s work in Africa

WWF

07/12/2011

Rural women, agriculture & natural resource rights: Real impact & right response to climate change

ActionAid International, OXFAM International

08/12/2011

Business leadership and a call to action on climate change.

University of Cambridge

09/12/2011

Building the Climate Change Regime

Government of Ireland, UNEP and WRI

profile.

Nationality: German and American

Liane Schalatek

What prompted your early interest in the environment?

And what should this look like?

I grew up in politically conservative Southern Germany, home of German car maker Daimler Benz. In the early 1980s, the company wanted to build a race track for testing its cars in our rural neck of the wood. Local farmers were put under pressure to sell their land and some community forests were razed in preparation for the track even before the final legal decision was made.

Local farmers, most of them older conservative voters, and young environmentalists, “green hippies”, worked together to defeat the proposal and proved that concern for the environment can cut across political lines, age or income class.

An agreement, leaving politics aside, in which each and every party looks honestly at what it thinks it can do to save the climate while safeguarding a decent life for all of its citizens and then – without waiting for other countries to do the first step or for a tit-for-tat – at least doubles its ambition.

A favourite quote:

Country of residence: USA

“Meddling is the only way to stay relevant” (Heinrich Böll)

Current Position:

What do you believe should be achieved at COP17?

Associate Director, Heinrich Böll Foundation North America

3

Of course, everybody would like to see decisions on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and a well structured and well capitalized Green Climate Fund at the end of this week. But overall, I would love for the negotiations at COP 17 to regain the elements of trust and best faith efforts among all parties. Otherwise, we really don’t have to bother with multi-year work programmes and elaborate time-tables spelling out the work for future COPs.

What timeline is reasonable for an international agreement to be achieved?

The shortest time-line super-humanely possible. We have already pretty much run out of time….

What do you think the priorities for action should be emerging from COP 17?

We cannot forget those already suffering from climate change over our efforts to reduce further emissions.

Having the COP in Africa should be a wake-up call for negotiators. The future is now. I would like to see a comprehensive human rights centered adaptation framework emerge from COP 17, which is supported by a strong commitment for new and additional, adequate and predictable and significantly scaled-up public grant funding by Annex II countries for adaptation efforts.

What is your aim within your role for 2012?

Working as part of a larger international stakeholder engagement effort with the future GCF Board in ensuring that with all the talk about effectiveness and efficiency of climate financing the aspect of equity, including gender equity, is not forgotten. I would love to work with others on making the GCF a truly gender responsive global climate financing mechanism. ■

provisions and linkages with other systems; banking and borrowing of allowances across time; and safety-valve provisions. If these provisions, sometimes characterised as cost-containment measures, are present in one of the linked systems, they will automatically be made available to participants in the other system.

A Wave of the Future: International Linkage of Carbon Markets

In the near-term, some links will be more attractive and easier to establish than others. Given the designelement propagation implications of two-way links between cap-and-trade systems, to facilitate such links it may be necessary to harmonise some design elements.

And in some cases, it may be necessary to establish broader international agreements governing aspects of the design of linked cap-and-trade systems beyond mutual recognition of allowances.

Robert N. Stavins Harvard University

Despite the demise in the United States' Senate last year of serious

An emerging de facto international climate policy architecture?

consideration of an economy-wide U.S. cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions, a major cap-andtrade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is in place in the European Union; similar systems are in place or under development pic: spekulator

in New Zealand, California, and several Canadian provinces; systems are being considered at the national level in Australia, Canada, and Japan; and a global emission reduction credit scheme – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – has an enthusiastic and important constituency of supporters in the form of the world’s developing countries.

So, despite the fact that there has been an undeniable loss of momentum, it remains true that capand-trade is still the most likely domestic policy approach for CO2 emissions reductions throughout the industrialised world, given the rather unattractive set of available alternative approaches. This makes it important to think about the possibility of linking these national and regional cap-and-trade systems in the future. Such linking occurs when the government that maintains one system allows regulated entities to use allowances or credits from other systems to meet compliance obligations.

The consequences of linking systems Tradable permit systems fall into two categories: cap-and-trade and emission reduction credits. Under cap-and-trade (CAT), the total emissions of regulated sources are capped and the sources are required to hold allowances equal to their emissions. Under a credit system, entities that voluntarily undertake emission reduction projects are awarded credits that

“

In the near-term, indirect linkage of cap-and-trade systems via a common credit system (such as the CDM) could achieve some of the cost savings and risk diversification of direct linkage,

can be sold to participants in cap-and-trade systems.

By broadening markets for allowances and credits, linking increases the liquidity and improves the functioning of markets. Linking can reduce the costs of the linked systems by making it possible to shift emission reductions across systems. Just as allowance trading within a system allows higher-cost emission reductions to be replaced by lower-cost reductions, trading across systems allows higher-cost reductions in one system to be replaced by lower-cost reductions in another system.

Along with the cost savings it can offer, linking has other implications that warrant serious consideration. Under some circumstances, linked systems collectively will not achieve the same level of emission reductions as they would absent linking. This can result either from a link’s impact on emissions under the linked systems, or from its impact on emissions leakage from those systems. Linking also has distributional impacts across and within systems, and can reduce the control that a country has over the impacts of its tradable permit system. In particular, when a domestic CAT system is linked with another CAT system, decisions by the government overseeing the other system can influence the domestic system’s allowance price, distributional impacts and emissions.

Concerns about linking Importantly, trading brought about by unrestricted links between CAT systems will lead to the automatic propagation of certain design elements, including: offset

Whereas some two-way links between cap-and-trade systems may thus take more time to establish, in the near-term one-way links between cap-and-trade and credit systems, such as the CDM, will likely be more attractive and easier to establish. A one-way link with a credit system may offer a cap-and-trade system greater cost savings than a two-way link with another cap-andtrade system. Also, such one-way links can only reduce allowance prices in the cap-and-trade system, giving a government greater control over its system than if it established a two-way link with another cap-andtrade system. The well-known additionality problem associated with the CDM (and other offset programmes) is an important concern associated with such links, but it can be managed – to some degree – through the establishment of better criteria for awarding or recognising credits.

Most importantly, if emerging cap-and-trade systems link with a common credit system such as the CDM, this will create indirect links among the cap-and-trade systems.

Through the indirect links that they create, such one-way linkages can achieve much of the near-term cost savings and risk diversification that direct two-way links among cap-and-trade systems would achieve. And they can do this without requiring the same foundation that likely would be needed to establish direct two-way links, such as harmonisation of cost-containment measures.

Such linkage may well emerge as part of the de facto post-2012 international climate policy architecture and is fully consistent both with the Kyoto Protocol and with the bottom-up, decentralised approach inherent in the Cancun Agreements.

“

4

COP 17 | DAY 8

DAY 8 | COP 17

In the short term, linkage will continue to grow in importance as a core element of a bottom-up, de facto international policy architecture. The EU ETS has already established direct links among the member states and the CDM has emerged as a potential hub for indirect links among cap-and-trade systems worldwide. As new cap-and-trade systems emerge, the global network of direct and indirect links will likely continue to spread.

There is a trade off between direct linkages, which can require a high degree of harmonisation, international cooperation and indirect linkages via a common credit system, and raises concerns about additionality. This trade off may suggest a natural progression. In the near-term, indirect linkage of cap-and-trade systems via a common credit system (such as the CDM) could achieve some of the cost savings and risk diversification of direct linkage, but without the need for as much harmonisation of emerging and existing cap-and-trade systems.

Such indirect linkage would also limit potential distributional concerns and preserve a high degree of national control over allowance markets.

In the longer term, international negotiations could establish shared expectations about environmental targets and emission reduction responsibilities that would serve as the basis for a broad set of multilateral, direct links among cap-and-trade systems. This progression could promote the nearterm goals of participation and cost-effectiveness while helping to build the foundation for a more comprehensive future agreement.■

Conclusions Cap-and-trade systems are emerging as a preferred national and sub-national policy instrument for reducing GHG emissions in many parts of the world, and the CDM has developed a substantial constituency despite some concerns about its performance. Because of the considerable political and economic pressure to link these systems, linkage may be expected to play a de facto, if not de jure, role in any future international climate policy architecture.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Robert N. Stavins is the Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, University Fellow of Resources for the Future, and Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

5

“

Gender as a cross-cutting issue in the Green Climate Fund

This is where the Green Climate Fund has a chance to do better by being the first to integrate gender as a cross-cutting issue from the outset. The draft governing instrument for the GCF, which the negotiations in Durban will consider and approve, includes several references to gender relevant to the Fund’s mission, governance and operational modalities.

Liane Schatalek Associate Director, Heinrich Böll Foundation North America Gender considerations are currently not being systematically addressed in existing climate financing instruments; where gender appears, it’s in bits and pieces.

A key reason for this is the fact that gender considerations were not integrated from the start into the design and operationalisation of existing dedicated climate financing mechanisms. While they are not completely absent, most seem to have been added only as an afterthought. For example, the World Bank’s Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience (PPCR) and the Kyoto Protocol Adaptation Fund. At the Global Environment Facility (GEF), gender has so far not been an obligatory decision criterion for the review and approval of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF); however, the GEF is now working to implement its own gender mainstreaming policy. This is where the Green Climate Fund has a chance to do better by being the first to integrate gender as a cross-cutting issue from the outset. The draft governing instrument for the GCF, which the negotiations in Durban will consider and approve, includes several references to gender relevant to the Fund’s mission, governance and operational modalities.

Women form the majority of the world’s 1.4 billion people still living in abject poverty and they are often disproportionally affected by climate change impacts. This is largely due to persisting gender norms and widespread gender discriminations that deny women income, legal rights, access to resources or political participation; while assigning them the primary role in caring for their families and providing for their livelihoods. Women and men also contribute to climate change responses in different ways and have different capabilities based on their respective knowledge, experiences and expertise to mitigate and adapt. This makes women important agents of change in the fight against global warming.

UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 confirmed important short- and long-term climate finance goals, and provided guiding principles for the finance obligation of Annex II countries under the Convention. Article 7 in the decision also acknowledges that gender equality and the effective participation of women

COP 17 | DAY 8

“

6

DAY 8 | COP 17

are important for all aspects of climate change. This is especially relevant for adaptation, where article 12 explicitly demands a gender-sensitive approach.

Gender-differentiated vulnerabilities and capabilities in the context of climate change thus necessitate gender-responsive climate financing instruments and funding allocation and disbursement.

Previous international experiences from development programmes indicate that by making public climate change funding more gender-responsive, its effectiveness and efficiency will also improve. A look at Africa illustrates this: Women are still the primary agricultural producers, accounting for up to 80 per cent of the household food production. As women own little of the land they work on, they are often kept out of formal consultation processes to determine adaptation needs of rural communities and are unable to secure credits or other agricultural extension services. In times of food insecurity, aggravated by the extreme weather variability and long-term weather pattern changes brought on by climate change, women and girls are often likely to receive less food because of gender-based distribution dynamics within households.

1. Gender equality as a guiding principle and a crosscutting issue.

2. Gender-responsive funding guidelines and criteria Pic: Camil Marc

secretariat teams. In the case of the Global Fund, there are several full time gender advisors as well as gender experts on the monitoring, evaluation, legal advisory and civil society outreach teams. But this in itself is not enough. Equally important is the systematic integration of gender equality in a fund’s governance structure as well in its public participation mechanisms, for example through a dedicated role for gender-focused organizations and women’s groups. At the CIFs, civil society representatives can participate as active observers in board meetings with the right to take the floor, add agenda items and recommend outside experts for consideration by a fund board. Special representation is accorded to indigenous peoples with a separate seat that is not counted toward the overall civil society quota.

Women deserve no less.

To be effective, adaptation policies and funding for adaptation projects and programmes in agriculture in Africa need to consider the gender dynamics of food procurement and distribution both within households and markets. For example, they should target rural women in Africa specifically with capacity-building, consultation outreach, technical assistance and tailored agricultural extension services. Without a gender-sensitive lens, climate financing instruments delivering adaptation funding for Africa can exacerbate the discrimination of women. This threatens women’s rights and directly contravenes the Convention on the Elimination on all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which almost all recipient and contributor countries of international climate finance have adopted.

The effective use of climate finance requires mainstreaming climate change considerations into development policy and planning, which in turn requires incorporating gender considerations into these processes in order to achieve sustainable and equitable outcomes. Funding allocations need to be coherent and consistent with national development plans, mitigation, and adaptation strategies, which should be developed through gender sensitive participatory and transparent processes involving all relevant stakeholders.

It is possible to include gender systematically and effectively in a global financing mechanism. Some “better practice” examples do exist. The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) and the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI) have had gender action plans or detailed gender policies since 2008. In addition, both funds have a “gender infrastructure”, consisting of a Gender Working Group in the case of GAVI, which includes representatives from all

Some key principles and actions to operationalise such an approach in the Green Climate Fund include the use of:

Pic (top): Vivek Chugh (bottom): Ulf Cunha

for each thematic funding window or sub-fund.

3. Explicit gender criteria in performance objectives and evaluation of funding options. Such criteria can include a mandatory gender analysis of the proposed project or programme, a gender budget and some clear indicators measuring how projects and programmes contribute to gender equality objectives, as well as the systematic collection of sex-disaggregated data.

4. Gender-balance and gender-expertise in all Fund decision-making bodies, as well as in the Fund Secretariat to ensure that gender equality principles are considered in programme, from the project review, monitoring, reporting and verification, to the evaluation of the GCF’s funding portfolio.

5. Special efforts to seek and financially support the input and participation of women as stakeholders and beneficiaries in the planning and preparation, the implementation and monitoring and the evaluation of a programme or project.

6. A regular audit of the gender impacts of funding allocations in their overview and reporting, in order to ensure balance between mitigation and adaptation activities and a gender-responsive delivery.

7. A robust set of social, gender and environmental safeguards and guidelines for their implementation that guarantee gender equality, women’s rights and women’s full participation. These safeguards need to comply with existing international obligations, including on human and women’s rights, labour standards and environmental law.■

FOR MORE INFORMATION Visit http://www.boell.org.za/web/cop17-cop17.html

7

“Technically speaking”, we have many reasons to protect health from climate change

pic: Uesio DaGama

Timothy Bouley

Human health is commonly recognised as a key impact area of climate change by those participating in the UN process, yet it is scarcely reflected in the language and actions of the COP cohort.

The original 1992 UNFCCC text has only two token mentions of health, the Kyoto Protocol has zero, and the Cancun Adaptation Framework has one - in a footnote.

This is difficult to understand, given the immense impact that climate change will have on human health and well-being. As articulated by one of the world’s leading medical journals: “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”. Neglect of this issue by UNFCCC can perhaps be understood by recognising the complexity of drivers that influence those who have control over framework text. Economic incentives, humanitarian concerns and geopolitical motivations tear at the conscience and practical capabilities of those constructing these documents. Attributing specific health outcomes directly to climate change is difficult, lying well beyond the vanguard of decision-maker consideration - particularly in light of the abundance of directly attributable energy and development interests plaguing the architects of COP negotiations. Human health therefore remains an afterthought - an acknowledged, admittedly important one with dire consequences if neglected, yet a notion that seemingly has little bargaining power at the draft-writing table.

This is unfortunate - not only because of the plight of those whose health is and will be affected by climate change, but because of the missed opportunity for re-inspiring what is often perceived to be a stagnant negotiation process. Health lies at the heart of humanitarian concern, has significant impact on

economic markets and affects geopolitical security. That human health is a humanitarian concern is self-evident.

That health is economically important is also obvious, though less so in the context of climate change. Recent reports by the National Resource Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Accenture have tallied these health costs due to climate change and found billions of dollars worth of new impetus for diminishing greenhouse gas emissions. A recent partnership amongst the British Medical Journal and International Institute for Strategic Studies has highlighted the undeniable link between climate change, security and health.

In addition to the mere extension of technology, there is a requisite for the novel development of technology to meet the manifold and often interrelated challenges of our changing climate. Burning fossil fuels, for example, leads to climate change that can lead to more favourable conditions for mosquitos and result in a higher malaria rate. Burgeoning technological development may reveal solutions to issues that can target the spectrum of these challenges. Synthetic biology, for example, is an emerging discipline that uses basic biologic building blocks to construct purpose-built biologic organisms. Synthetic Genomics, a US based biotechnology firm has entered into a $600 million partnership with Exxon Mobil to develop next generation biofuels predicated on synthetic biology research. Using similar science, a group of researchers from Berkeley have discovered a way to produce the antimalarial medication, artemisinin, offering a means to cheaply and efficiently produce a drug that can combat one of the greatest global health threats of our day. Climate change is, in some ways, driving the development of new technology that can be used to overcome many of these growing challenges.

In spite of UNFCCC’s silence on the issue, it is encouraging to know that many others are investing heavily in it. The WHO is partnering with the UNDP and WMO, the United States has established a new funding scheme for climate change and health research, and dozens of new voices are emerging from academia and civil society calling for climate change and health action. Our understanding of the way that climate change impacts human health has ballooned. From the earliest warning calls at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, report upon report has been printed exploring this relationship. Hundreds of academic papers have been published in leading journals describing a worrying number of climate sensitive health impacts (vector-borne disease, water-borne disease, heat stress, malnutrition, and respiratory disease to name a few). Most recently, industry has also become involved Swiss Re, Accenture and GSK, for example, have publicly reported how the health impacts of climate change will affect their sectors.

Though we have progress to make in understanding the nuance of global environmental and human health interactions, we have considerable information to recognise that the impacts are real, are happening now, and will increase in the future. Expanding our knowledge, however, is not enough. We must increase our capacity for dealing with these changes, escalate our adaptation campaigns and usher in an era of response. In some ways adaptation has already begun. The WHO, for instance, has piloted a global project in climate change adaptation that focuses on public health. A number of nations, such as India, Canada, and Brazil are investing in capacity building programmes, and non-profit groups, like the Health and Climate Foundation, are working with African partners to improve understanding of environmentally sensitive diseases.

Institutional and governmental capacity building, however, will only meet part of our growing adaptation

needs. Increasing environmental pressures on health will require technological investment to deflect these growing burdens. In order to understand the magnitude and likelihood of specific impacts, we will need to improve monitoring and surveillance systems - gathering meteorologic, environmental and disease data to help us identify regional threats and enable officials to make informed decisions. To react to these climate-sensitive health threats, other sorts of technological interventions and knowledge amplifications must occur. Environmental management, vector control and reduction, and pharmaceutical development and distribution, each rely heavily on technological innovation and have a role to play in responding to growing health burdens.

Much of the technology needed to combat the health threats of climate change already exists. There are sophisticated systems in place for monitoring environmental and disease parameters; they must, however, be extended to those contexts in which the populations are most vulnerable. HealthMap, CDC, NASA, NOAA, and the WMO are excellent starting points. There is also considerable precedent for transferring technology that directly combats disease, such as those used in vector control and pharmaceutical distribution. For years, vector control methods and drugs development and manufacturing methods have been shared for the most pressing of global health considerations.

As we uncover those health impacts most likely to result from climate change, we can perhaps begin to develop a new list of essential medicines to be used in the treatment of these climate sensitive threats on the horizon.

“

Much of the technology needed to combat the health threats of climate change already exists.

They must, however, be extended to those contexts in which the populations are most vulnerable.

“

8

COP 17 | DAY 8

DAY 8 | COP 17

To best facilitate this flow of information and harness the innovation, the UNFCCC would be well-served to recognise the health impacts of climate change so that funding mechanisms and visibility for the relationship can blossom. The UNFCCC could become a beacon around which those with interests in health, energy, and development can gather to form lasting climate change related partnerships.

Health is an area of truly universal climate change impact that represents a profundity of human experience and expression.

Building this recognition into UNFCCC text protects those whose health is threatened by climate change and honours those whose health has already been affected by it. ■

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Timothy Bouley MD, MSc is a medical doctor trained in environmental change and management.

9

10Economic and environmental recovery must DAY 8 | COP 17

go hand in hand – and we need to act now Ian Cheshire Group CEO, Kingfisher Given the fragility of the economic recovery and the financial drama engulfing the eurozone, it is easy to see why climate change has fallen off the front pages and seemingly dropped down government agendas.

Yet, growth and protecting our natural environment are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they are ever more entwined.

As a businessman, I become ever more convinced that the environment is an economic issue, and no economy can grow sustainably if it is growing from an environmentally unsustainable foundation.

Modern economic and environmental policies require effective global action to ensure we manage our resources efficiently. They are the two biggest issues we face.

Decisions made over the following weeks and months, including those made at COP 17, have the potential either to set the world firmly on a path to low carbon economic growth or to implicitly sanction-dangerous inaction. Now is not the time to let the urgency dissipate at the multilateral level: collective and determined action is essential - and businesses like the one I run have a key part to play.

Whereas in the past sustainability may have been largely about burnishing companies’ reputations, it is increasingly becoming a non-negotiable consideration for any business looking to grow and prosper in an uncertain future. Far from tinkering round the edges we now need to build a new economy

where sustainability is at the core of business and not the periphery.

For many this will mean doing the unthinkable looking beyond the usual short-term cycles to ensure a long-term future. This might sound daunting at first, but it is actually an enormous opportunity and should be the logical outcome of the work that is already underway in many companies.

At Kingfisher, sustainability is part of our heritage.

Our journey started 20 years ago, when we found ourselves unable to answer challenges over the source of the timber in our garden furniture and resolved to change. Over the intervening years, we broadened the scope of our work, introducing a range of policies and initiatives up and down our supply chain.

However, businesses can only do so much.

Sustainability is a complex global challenge, requiring global solutions jointly agreed by governments, with the engagement of businesses, investors, civil society and consumers.

This is why I have joined business leaders from over 340 companies around the world in signing the Corporate Leaders’ Network 2˚C Challenge Communiqué, which calls on governments to agree an ambitious, robust and equitable global deal on climate change at the UN, while taking their own national-level actions as well.

As businesses we stand ready to do our bit but we need government to create the right framework. In Durban, global leaders must demonstrate that they are truly committed to a sustainable, low carbon world and set out a tangible path to sustainable growth. Future generations will not forgive us for a collective failure.■

Outreach is made possible by the generous support of