inside: The private sector’s murky role in climate finance Geo-engineering the climate: Possible remedy or colossal catastrophe?
a daily multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development
out reach. 6 December 2012
Be PaperSmart: Read Outreach online www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach pic: NASA/Kathryn Hansen
contents. 1
The case for sector approaches for energy intensive industries
2
Carbon market mechanisms: The co-ordinating hand of the UNFCCC?
3
Geo-engineering the climate: Possible remedy or colossal catastrophe?
4
Climate change and the Caribbean: A threat to prosperity
5
Enabling business to deliver on climate change
6
The private sector’s murky role in climate finance
7
Profile: Lakshmi Puri
8
Adaptation reporting: Experience from the United Kingdom
9
Engineering Solutions to Climate Change
DecisionMakr Rankings Day 9 - How did the ministers fare?
3
4
10 Responsible energy in Alberta 11 Will a New Market-based Mechanism open up a new world for the private sector? 12 Shifting agendas: From response to resilience
10
13 COP18 side event calendar 14 Reflections from COP18, Wednesday 5 December pic: NASA/Kathryn Hansen
OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:
Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development. It is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena, published at various international meetings on the environment; including the UNCSD meetings (since 1997), UNEP Governing Council, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and World Water Week. 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 and climate change arenas, giving a voice to individuals and organisations Stakeholder Forum is an international from all stakeholder groups. To fully ensure organisation working to advance a multi-stakeholder perspective, we aim to sustainable development and promote engage a wide range of stakeholders for democracy at a global level. Our work article contributions and project funding. aims to enhance open, accountable and If you are interested in contributing to participatory international decision-making on sustainable development and climate Outreach, please contact the team change through enhancing the involvement (acutter@stakeholderforum.org or of stakeholders in intergovernmental jcornforth@stakeholderforum.org ) processes. For more information, visit: You can also follow us on Twitter: @stakeholders www.stakeholderforum.org
OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Editor
Amy Cutter
Stakeholder Forum
Editorial Assistant
Jack Cornforth
Stakeholder Forum
Editorial Advisor
Farooq Ullah
Stakeholder Forum
Print Designer
Faye Arrowsmith
www.flogo-design.co.uk
Web Designer
Matthew Reading-Smith
Stakeholder Forum
CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Susanne Baker
EEF
Norma Cherry-Fevrier Ministry of Sustainable Development, St Lucia Hayley Coleman Alison Cooke Luke Kemp
ICE Europe FC-ES ANU, Fenner School of Environment and Society
Luke McGreevy
Global Voices, Australia
Diana McQueen
Environment Minister of Alberta
Narae Lee Inter-American Development Bank Group and Johns Hopkins University Adam Poole
Buro Happold and FC-ES steering group
Andrew Prag
OECD
Lakshmi Puri
UN Women
Janet Redman Sue Riddlestone
Institute for Policy Studies BioRegional
Lola Vallejo UK Committee on Climate Change Umair Ullah
Ullah Consulting Ltd
COP 18 | DAY 10
The case for sector approaches for energy intensive industries Susanne Baker EEF, the Manufacturer’s Organisation, UK
When the world convenes each year in attempt hammer out a deal to combat the threat of climate change under the auspices of the UNFCCC, it is all too easy to get absorbed into the detail of finance, targets and institutional structures. There is a tendency to focus on what divides us, rather than what unites us. To many within industry, sitting on the fringes of this political battleground, all too often it seems that we have lost sight of the challenge and have failed to consider how we can most effectively work together to tackle some of the enormous technological challenges that remain. In the case of energy intensive sectors that deliver commodities in a fiercely competitive global marketplace, a division of responsibility based on geographical location makes little sense. What are needed are coordinated global approaches for these sectors. Take steel. Within Europe, it is the largest manufacturing contributor of emissions under the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS). In 2007, it accounted for around 5% of global emissions. Unless there is major advancement in material substitution, the sector has a key role to play in delivering the material we need to a build low-carbon energy system. In short, it remains a vital component of many low-carbon supply chains. Yet steel products are globally traded, with prices largely set by the balance of supply and demand. Carbon pricing combined with emission caps, the current instrument of choice amongst policymakers, cannot work for such sectors because the ability to pass on these unilaterally-imposed additional costs is severely limited. The European Commission has identified steel as being at risk from carbon leakage. This is clearly an unacceptable outcome as no emissions are reduced, they just risk being moved somewhere else. Furthermore, the steel sector has very high sunk costs and limited medium-term abatement options: closing inefficient plants, improving energy efficiency, ensuring plants are built using best available technology and increasing the use of scrap. However, even if these are all employed, global emissions are still expected to grow as a result of expanded production capacity. In addition, the use of scrap in furnaces is limited by scrap availability. Therefore, there is a real need for breakthrough technologies for the sector to more efficiently produce virgin steel.
pic: Scunthorpe steel works, by Eye Love You
In the UK, steelmakers are involved in the €75m Ultra Low CO2 Steelmaking (ULCOS) research programme, comprising all the major EU steel companies, energy and engineering partners, research institutes and universities and supported by the European Commission. It is exploring breakthrough technologies with the aim of halving the emissions relating from steelmaking by 2030. But it is stalling because steelmakers are struggling to secure the large sums of capital required to demonstrate these novel processes because the sector cannot absorb these additional, unilateral huge costs. In an ideal world, these highly developed industrial sectors would face a similar cost of carbon regardless of where they were located. But the unequal spread of carbon pricing means that innovation efforts are being undermined. The transformation to low carbon industrial processes looks bleak without global participation. If the world is serious about wanting low-carbon manufacturing, another approach must be adopted. Article 74 of the Durban Platform calls for a decision to be adopted in Doha which sets a general framework for cooperative sectoral approaches and sector-specific actions. A sector approach can consist of a combination of policies designed around individual sectors’ unique characteristics, location and technologies, to push efficiency and stimulate innovation in break-through technologies which can lead to the profound decarbonisation that we are all hoping for, and need. Having lived under various climate change policies for many years now that impose unilateral costs burdens for energy intensive industries, we believe sector approaches have the opportunity to offer faster, more effective, largescale responses to climate change for sectors such as steel. We urge negotiators not to write them off
.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Susanne Baker is Senior Climate & Environment Policy Adviser at EEF, the Manufacturer’s Organisation for UK manufacturing companies
1
COP 18 | DAY 10
Carbon market mechanisms: The co-ordinating hand of the UNFCCC? Andrew Prag Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Carbon markets often seem to punch above their weight as a UNFCCC negotiation issue. Why is this seemingly small agenda item such a big deal, and what can we expect from it in future? Carbon market mechanisms have been integral to the UNFCCC process since countries agreed in 1997 that the Kyoto Protocol (KP) would have a cap-and-trade system for governments at its heart, a move spearheaded at the time by the United States. The additional inclusion of project-based offset mechanisms in the final agreement came as a surprise to many, and was a first step towards the participation of developing countries, albeit through voluntary project activities under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Together, these flexibility mechanisms not only launched a raft of private sector organisations seeking mitigation projects in developing countries, but also triggered developed country policy makers towards implementing domestic emissions trading to help them achieve Kyoto commitments cost effectively. First the EU, adopting cap-and-trade legislation in 2003, followed by New Zealand, Australia, Japan and the US (though the last two have not yet succeeded in implementing mandatory national trading systems), sought to pass on the burden (and potential opportunities) of emissions reductions to the private sector through company-to-company trading systems. The rapid development of an offset industry and implementation of emissions trading systems did not however occur independently – the CDM was significantly boosted by the EU’s decision to link it directly with its company-level trading system. Fast-forward to 2012 where, on the eve of the end of Kyoto’s first commitment period, Parties have been negotiating for five long years on new market instruments to build on the Kyoto mechanisms under a new agreement. What’s been taking them so long?
2
To answer that, we need to take a broader look at what carbon market instruments are trying to achieve. Carbon markets drive net emission reductions through trading systems with binding caps; offset credits can reduce the cost of achieving the cap but cannot function alone. The cost advantages of trading systems increase with the scale and breadth of the covered system, meaning that linking markets is seen as a desirable policy aim, provided that the systems are similar enough to ensure one another’s integrity. The KP’s core cap-and-trade system had wide international coverage but was designed as a governmentto-government trading system. The EU and Australian systems, being nested within the international framework, share similar design principles, and this arguably has facilitated the recent announcement of a direct link to be established between the systems.
pic: Carbon emission counter in New York, by Ryan Somma
Against this backdrop of international and domestic mechanisms, discussions of new market mechanisms under the UNFCCC have been broad ranging. At the Durban Conference in 2011, negotiations split into two tracks: one focusing on a “new market-based mechanism” and one on a so-called “framework for various approaches.” Proposals for the former have included scaled-up crediting mechanisms, as well as provisions for cap-and-trade style trading with varying degrees of governance by UN bodies. The form and function of the “framework” remain unclear, but it is seen by some Parties as a means to seek international credibility for use of their ‘own’ domestic mechanisms as tools to meet their national pledges or targets put forward under the UNFCCC. New crediting mechanisms will not add to global mitigation efforts unless they are accompanied by stringent new sources of demand for credits, driven by cap-and-trade systems. It seems unlikely that either the US, nor major developing countries like China will sign up to an internationally-imposed Kyoto-style cap-andtrade system. However, the last few years have witnessed a flowering of locally-governed, sub-national trading systems in the US and now China, as well as systems in other advanced developing countries, and this shows that the necessary demand might come from domestic, rather than UN-governed, regulation. Such domestic systems would need to link together to maximise cost reductions, and such links will only occur if regulators are mutuallyconfident in each others’ design standards and governance arrangements. In such a system, UNFCCC agreements on markets could still play a key role in establishing design standards which, although voluntary to adopt, could facilitate the creation of an interlinked carbon market, whilst helping to ensure that environmental quality is maintained and real mitigation occurs
.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Andrew Prag is a policy analyst for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Further information on the OECD/IEA Climate Change Expert Group can be found at www.oecd.org/env/cc/ccxg
COP 18 | DAY 10
Geo-engineering the climate: Possible remedy or colossal catastrophe? Norma Cherry-Fevrier Ministry of Sustainable Development, Energy, Science and Technology, Saint Lucia The application of geo-engineering as a proposed solution to climate change must be exercised with caution, as it can have numerous damaging and unknown consequences. In a desperate effort to produce innovative ideas to combat climate change, scientists are proposing solutions that range from practical to colossally extreme in their impacts. Recently, some sectors of the scientific community have begun to look to geo-engineering as a solution to the planet’s climate woes. It appears that rather than promoting solutions on smaller scales, such as at the individual and community levels, a number of scientists are looking to engage in grand solutions that appear promising, but can in fact be disastrous. Doug Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, strengthens this argument by saying that:
in mitigation and adaptation actions that are gradually showing positive results, why are we so quick to pursue uncertain and potentially catastrophic ones, all in the name of combating climate change?
“the scientific community is becoming so scared of our collective inability to tackle climate emissions that such outlandish schemes are being considered for serious study.”
While the proposed geo-engineering solutions seem appealing, there remains a lots of uncertainty associated with them. Additionally, it appears that the emerging debates on geo-engineering the climate – the golden apple – may lead to a ‘Trojan War’ as a result of quarrels between the those who argue for and against such solutions. As the jury is still out, the recommendation is to continue with the current initiatives aimed at reducing GHGs, while simultaneously engaging in extensive research and evaluation of geo-engineering methods. To convince humanity, scientists must show, as Sun Tzu states in the Art of War, that geo-engineering methods for solving the climate change problem are “what the ancients call a clever fighter, one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.”
What is geo-engineering? Geo-engineering solutions fall in two basic categories: • m ethods aimed at removing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the atmosphere; and • s olar radiation management methods that seek to offset GHG concentrations, causing the earth to absorb less solar radiation. Some of the unusual activities proposed under these broader categories include: simulating the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions by discharging sulfates into the stratosphere, having crewless ships eject vapour so as to brighten clouds and enhance marine cloud reflectivity and by placing deflectors in space to reduce the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth. The American Meteorological Society released a statement concerning such methods saying:
What about financing? Geo-engineering schemes, if proven to be applicable, will require enormous levels of financing. How likely does this look, therefore, if current climate financing is comparable to a phantom that Small Island Developing States (SIDS) hear about, but hardly ever see? Such solutions will definitely require innovative financing mechanisms to support their implementation and ensure their sustainability. The jury is still out
.
“Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth’s average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns… The consequences of reflecting sunlight would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic, and national security concerns.” Shouldn’t scientists be cautious? These anticipated solutions, despite their apparent grandeur, are very risky. Therefore caution must be exercised in their application, since their approaches, the timescales over which they are effective, and their effects on temperature, among other things, differ greatly. Therefore, the question must be asked: if we are engaging
pic: Chemtrails or contrails? by returntogodsgarden
3
COP 18 | DAY 10
Climate change and the Caribbean: A threat to prosperity Umair Ullah Ullah Consulting Ltd The risks that climate change poses to the Caribbean are clear. Rising sea levels, higher temperatures and increased storm activity present obvious dangers to people’s lives, livelihoods and property. These impacts add to the developmental challenges the Caribbean faces in realising the levels and types of growth necessary to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods. Efforts to bring about such change are increasingly, and correctly, focused on private sector development (PSD). However, climate change threatens these initiatives. To properly understand the implications of climate change for PSD, it is helpful to briefly review economic development in the region and the focus of current PSD initiatives.
pic: Destroyed road following Hurricane Ivan in 2004, by Lloyd Morgan
With the loss of preferential access to EU markets for agricultural goods, industries such as bananas and sugar cane – the lifeblood of a number of Caribbean islands – collapsed in the face of international competition. Manufacturing industries typically did not develop due to a range of factors contributing to a high cost base in most of the Caribbean. Circumstances vary, but these typically include: poor and/or expensive transport infrastructure, poor and/or expensive utilities, limited local availability of raw materials, limited labour supply (quantity and skills) and comparatively high labour costs in relation to East Asia. Consequently, services associated with tourism have become the mainstay of most Caribbean economies, either directly or by stimulating other industries such as construction. This dependency leaves these economies vulnerable to shocks like hurricanes and slowdowns in tourism source markets. An additional problem is that the majority of tourism jobs are in low value added activities such as hospitality, an inadequate outlet for well-educated Caribbean graduates, which therefore contributes to brain drain.
4
Continuing to diversify away from tourism and find new areas of economic activity that can drive growth and provide
a source of better jobs are key regional developmental challenges. Recently, many nations have focused on the development of professional service industries to respond to these economic imperatives. Areas such as outsourcing; financial/accounting services; and educational, medical, eco and cultural tourism present opportunities for higher revenues and wages and are not constrained by the factors that limited the growth of the manufacturing sector. They rely, among other things, on skilled and trainable labour at a competitive cost, adequate telecommunications infrastructure and the existence of an established tourism market. Countries vary in their relative strengths across these factors, but there have been successes. Jamaica now has over 10,000 fulltime agents working in the offshore business process outsourcing industry. In Barbados, a US$100 million medical centre will open in 2015, serving both international travellers and locals. Developing such enterprises and industries depends upon the private sector, which requires a suitable business enabling environment to innovate and grow; one that is resilient to environmental crises. Many PSD initiatives ongoing in the region are aimed at creating such an enabling environment, for example by advising governments on how to attract investment through marketing and incentives, providing support to businesses through advisory services or improved access to capital or reforming regulation and infrastructure. Critically, this is where the impacts of climate change come into play. They have the ability to destroy the enabling environment in which the private sector can thrive. Hurricanes prevent tourism, destroy the infrastructure it relies on and damage attractions. This limits the ability to diversify into higher value niche tourism segments. Their destructive power can have a similar effect on infrastructure necessary for non-tourism related professional services like outsourcing. Rising sea levels could lead to increased migration from the region, with the best and brightest, who are the most mobile, likely to go first, taking away the labour professional services rely upon. Therefore, attempts to improve lives for the people of the Caribbean through PSD initiatives are at a very real risk of being undermined by the effects of climate change. Adaptation measures such as early warning systems and preparedness can make a difference but alone cannot guarantee the enabling environment. Continuing to fund PSD initiatives and devote expertise to them without a coherent agenda capable of slowing and limiting the effects of climate change puts the economic development of the entire region at risk. The international community needs to urgently work together to globally mitigate against dangerous climate change which threatens Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Concurrently, the efforts of the UNFCCC Adaptation Committee and the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) will need to focus on providing aid, support and solutions to the region in adapting to the effects of climate change. Such global and local mitigation and adaptation measures are critical to creating a resilient business enabling environment capable of supporting prosperity throughout the Caribbean
.
COP 18 | DAY 10
Enabling business to deliver on climate change Sue Riddlestone BioRegional Leading businesses are clear that they want to play their part in taking action to deliver greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions now and that there is a lot that Member States can do to enable this, even before a global agreement is reached. It is not a question of
Chinese government has introduced new policies and the next phase aims to be a government backed showcase. Codding Enterprises in California, USA were building a 3.2MW solar array for the Sonoma Mountain Village project, a One Planet Community (pictured). It is one of the largest private solar arrays in California, but Codding found that they could not supply energy across private boundaries. It took some time, but local regulations were eventually changed to enable this, thanks to an enlightened municipality.
compliance or morality. Business wants to do what it does best, create new markets and products, reduce risk and improve competitiveness. In this article, business leaders offer five suggestions for ways in which governments and local authorities can enable business to get on and deliver reductions in GHG emissions. Installing new, renewable energy capacity and energy efficiency is a key part of the sustainable homes and communities that we and our partners are working on delivering. Over 100,000 homes with a development value of $30 billion dollars are in development around the world using the One Planet Living approach, a key principle of which is zero carbon in building energy use. Our experience is that national regulations make introducing renewable energy and energy efficiency difficult in many countries. For example, in South Africa, BioRegional have found the subsidies on fossil fuels to be a barrier to any interest in renewable energy or energy saving. In the run up to Rio+20 (the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, held in June 2012), BioRegional – together with our partners – spent time discussing barriers such as these and drew out some suggested measures, based on our experience, which governments could take to address them. These are as follows:
1. Enable new renewable energy to connect to the national electricity grid
2. Enable more diverse and local ownership of energy companies
3. Introduce an actuarial-based carbon price 4. Remove subsidies for fossil fuels, adjusting policies to avoid fuel poverty if necessary
5. Introduce Feed in Tariffs to incentivise uptake of renewable energy Two real life examples illustrate the first and second measures. China Merchants Property Development – who have built an award winning eco-community, Jinshan in Guangzhou, China – were unable to connect renewable energy to the local electricity grid in 2008 due to local regulations. They were also not allowed to own an energy company. Since then, the
pic: Sonoma Mountain Village is home to the second largest privately-owned solar array in Northern California
The Carbon Price Communique, which BioRegional are signatories of, has been discussed at many events at COP18 in Doha. The Communique, signed by over 129 businesses from all around the globe, calls for carbon pricing to be made a central part of national policy responses and asks that nations work towards the long term objective of a carbon price throughout the global economy. Business leaders also believe that it is critically important to set sufficient ambition – through internationally agreed targets – to drive change at a pace commensurate with the 2°C goal. At an event in Doha on Saturday business representatives made several key points; business wants a robust price on carbon and doesn’t believe voluntary action will be effective. They pointed out that a carbon price can deliver scale – just look at the large impact from the relatively small Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). One billion Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), $10-15 billion in carbon finance and about $100 billion in project investment. Attendees emphasised that the interaction of business with the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) is critical to a successful outcome. Governments around the world have found that tackling the barriers to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and introducing incentives such as Feed in Tariffs, can kick start the businesses of the future and drive prices down and efficiency up. If all governments could address these very practical issues it will enable us to make progress, even if a global deal will take some time to deliver
.
MORE INFO www.bioregional.com www.oneplanetliving.net
Carbon Price Communique: http://bit.ly/QVegJ5
5
COP 18 | DAY 10
The private sector’s murky role in climate finance Janet Redman Institute for Policy Studies While the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change rise and thus the need for climate finance in developing countries grows, wealthy governments shift focus from public support to private finance. But can the private sector meet the needs of those most impacted by climate change? In the halls of the UN climate negotiations in Doha, Qatar, you will hear a mantra that’s being echoed by developed country governments from their capital cities to international forums. It goes something like this: We’re broke. There’s no public money. And so, we have to use the scarce resources we do have to leverage massive wealth in the private – and particularly the financial – sector. You’ll also find in the halls of the annual climate summits the faces of private interests – industry reps, investors, and carbon traders. They’re a regular fixture here, but this year the private sector has taken centre stage in debates over climate finance. At COP18 there are seven times as many side events about getting private finance and carbon markets engaged in climate action as events highlighting the role of public funds.
of the private sector, or to support low-carbon, climateresilient sustainable development in poorer nations as its mandate states? While these two aims don’t have to be mutually exclusive, lessons from existing private sector institutions – like the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation – show that private finance often bypasses low-income countries, fails to reach the poor in middle-income countries, and prioritises large corporations over small and medium enterprises. In addition, the use of financial intermediaries to repackage and channel capital leads to serious challenges in transparency and public accountability. Particularly important is the fact that private sector money flows where the profit potential is greatest. For a climate fund this means big, mainly mitigation activities — not communityscale projects, adaptation, or disaster relief. Certainly, the private sector plays a critical role in any economy – and without its participation in making the shift away from dirty energy and polluting industry there will be no transition to a low-carbon future. But the private sector efforts that the Green Climate Fund should support are domestic enterprises that will reinvest wealth to meet the climate priorities of the people and communities most impacted by global warming.
There has also been a strategic shift in the rhetoric of developed countries away from talking about “providing” climate finance to speaking about “mobilising” money. The former implies public flows. The latter suggests countries are shifting emphasis toward looking outside national budgets for financial resources. Nowhere is the trend toward privileging the private sector more apparent than in the Green Climate Fund (GCF) – the newest financial institution under the climate Convention. After many contentious debates during the Fund’s design phase, industrialised nations succeeded in creating a sub-fund that guarantees the private sector direct access to the fund. Countries did win one concession – a ‘no-objection procedure’ that is meant to keep multinational corporations and international investment banks from going directly to the Green Climate Fund to undertake work in countries without the knowledge of national capitals. But investors are already starting to push back, saying that any kind of vetting process by the UN would make private sector engagement untenable.
6
In light of these challenges, the GCF’s board will have to grapple as they write the Fund’s business model this year with the question of what the ultimate purpose of the Green Climate Fund is – to maximise the involvement
pic: sBen Sutherland
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Janet Redman is the co-director of the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network at the Institute for Policy Studies, where she provides analysis of international financial institutions’ energy investment and climate finance activities. Janet is reporting live from Doha, Qatar during COP18
.
COP 18 | DAY 10
profile. Lakshmi Puri Why is the work you do at UN Women so relevant to climate change? UN Women is focused on interventions in two areas, one of which is to change and influence the norms, standards and policies at the global, regional, and national level, so as to make them gender-sensitive and gender-responsive. The other area is on the ground in 74 countries, where we mainstream climate change-related perspectives into our gender equality and women’s empowerment programmes.
Nationality: Indian Country of Residence: United States of America
Current Position: Deputy Executive Director of UN Women
Public perceptions of international climate negotiations seem to have struggled to recover since Copenhagen (COP15). Why should people still believe anything can be achieved in Doha? Multinational negotiations are a very complex phenomenon requiring the balancing of multiple interests. As someone who is, and has been, involved in multilateral negotiations, I believe that it is only through optimism can you ensure that there are results. Already, one of the outcomes and highlights of COP18, which we are optimistic about, is the ‘Doha Miracle’, because it elevates previous decisions adopted by COP in Marrakesh to enhance gender balance in all related bodies to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
How should gender be incorporated into an international agreement on climate change? Women need to be present in the global governance framework of climate change, to make the case, build the required norms, and actively contribute to already established instruments such as the technology committee. Whether in discussions on climate finance, or any other any aspect of the climate governance structure, women must be better represented. Why? Firstly, because women have a very big stake in reversing global warming. Therefore, it is important that a second commitment period is reached, and that we have a framework capable of keeping temperature increases to no more than 2°C. Secondly, women have an interest in the implementation of Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA). The Cancun agreement had clear agreements in terms
of every aspect and pillar of LCA of being engendered, taking into account gender perspectives, and being gender-sensitive. Therefore, we want to see that this built upon and further implemented in the agreements currently being worked upon.
What sort of activities will UN Women be undertaking in 2013 to empower women (at all levels) to address climate change? We have to make sure that Rio+20 outcomes, gender equality and gender empowerment are recognised as a driver, enabler, and beneficiary of sustainable development in all three dimensions - not only social but also the economic and environmental. We need to make sure that gender equality and women's empowerment is recognised as a development goal in its own right and that gender dimensions are included in all the relevant post-2015 global development goals. We have a large number of programmes on the ground which we will be looking to build upon, such as those working to build the resilience of women within communities to deal with natural disasters.
What are your long-term aims within your role? We want to continue to help bring out the agency of women, put them in decisionmaking roles where they can drive the agenda themselves and ensure that policies meet their own needs, as well as those of the communities in which they live. We'll also be trying to further mainstream climate change related aspects into our economic empowerment work, political participation, and leadership-related projects. We will work with governments to try to ensure that gender is immersed into climate change policies, laws, legislation, strategies, action plans, and measures, but equally that climate change considerations are reflected in gender policies themselves
.
7
COP 18 | DAY 10
Adaptation reporting: Experience from the United Kingdom Lola Vallejo UK Committee on Climate Change The world needs to start adapting to the inevitable climate change locked in by past and present greenhouse gas emissions. The United Kingdom's (UK) experience on adaptation reporting helps ensure vital infrastructure is prepared for this change, and could prove to be a useful policy instrument for other countries. The Climate Change Act (2008) gives the UK Government the power to require public authorities and private bodies with a statutory function, such as utilities, to prepare adaptation reports. In these reports, the organisations should set out both the risks they face from climate change and their strategies to address them. The first round of reporting (2009-2011) targeted over one hundred organisations, mostly infrastructure operators in the water, energy (electricity producers, transmitters and distributors) and transport (road and rail operators, airport and ports) sectors. The UK is the first country to have put in place a mechanism targeted public and private authorities alike, although other governments – such as Canada and Australia – are conducting research into the resilience of their businesses and infrastructure. In the United States, federal agencies are required to prepare an adaptation report as part of the annual budget-setting process. Understanding climate risks and encouraging good practice for adaptation are critical for all the parties attending COP18. Not only does the provision of modern infrastructure services (energy, water and sanitation, transport, and telecommunications) play an important role in economic growth and poverty alleviation in developing economies, it is critical to all countries’ resilience to climate change. Adaptation reporting has two main aims: • T o drive behaviour change in the targeted organisations at every level. Reporting first helps raise awareness and build capacity amongst those less aware of climate risks. It also provides organisations with an incentive to assess their risks and prepare adaptation plans. • T o provide an evidence base for governments to identify where further public intervention is needed. Investors are also increasingly interested in seeing that companies operating with long-lived assets embed climate change considerations into their decisions.
8
The UK Government is currently shaping its strategy for the second round of reporting, due to start next summer, and is about to consult its stakeholders. The UK Committee on
pic: damo1977
Climate Change (CCC), an independent public body that advises the Government, has made recommendations on who should be asked to report, and how they should do so, in the hope of making reporting more useful, costeffective and its outputs more robust. In principle, the organisations that should be targeted in priority should fulfil the following criteria: • D eliver services which are of critical importance for a functioning economy. For instance, telecommunications are critical to the operations of the water, energy and transport sectors, as well as enabling information flows between individuals and the emergency services in the case of an extreme weather event. • O wn assets or provide services particularly vulnerable to climate change. Most infrastructure assets (roads, electricity plants etc.) have a long lifespan and they will have to operate in a changing climate. • N ot be already covered by existing regulation on climate change adaptation. In terms of process, reports need to be evaluated by a competent and independent organisation and regularly monitored, to check that strategies are translated into actions. This policy mechanism ultimately illustrates how successful adaptation requires a close partnership between governments and businesses
.
MORE INFO Examples of research into the resilience of businesses and infrastructure: Canada - Climate prosperity initiative, from the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE):
http://bit.ly/oycxfu
Australia - Coming ready or not, from the Climate Institute:
http://bit.ly/TO1Sv9
COP 18 | DAY 10
Engineering Solutions to Climate Change Alison Cooke Coordinator, Future Climate – Engineering Solutions (FC-ES) Climate scientists have defined the problem of climate change; politicians are determining the policy; and engineers can implement the complex technological solutions. So why is it sometimes so difficult to hear the voice of the engineer in COP meetings? Previous COPs have discussed the actions necessary to avoid a 2°C increase in global temperature and then tied themselves in knots as to whether this condition was triggered by 400 or 500 parts per million (ppm) of CO2. That talk is gone. According to a press release from the UNFCCC in Qatar on 26th November 2012, “analysis published by the World Bank shows the world remains firmly at risk of seeing a 4°C temperature rise by the end of the century.” And, as we have not fully factored in the thawing of the permafrost, who knows what surprises are in store…
Adam Poole Buro Happold and FC-ES steering group and a meeting was held to bring together members of the network from across three continents. Speakers contributed from the following organisations: • T he UK Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) demonstrated its online open source tool for developing the user’s own low carbon pathways to 2050 for the UK. This is being extended to a global version using the UK’s International Climate Fund. • T he World Federation of Engineering Organisations and the British Council explained their existing organisational networks which respond to climate change. They offered support to FC-ES. • T he Indian Institute of Engineers and the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers described their FC-ES climate and energy plans whilst the Mayden Foundation suggested how this could be integrated into an intelligent interactive website to support a global online engineering community.
Future Climate – Engineering Solutions (FC-ES) was born in 2008, back in the days when we did not say to our children “you may want to think again about having children of your own. What sort of a world will you be bringing them up in?”
So, the voices of engineers are growing louder but how should they connect to the political process? Perhaps the answer is in the newly-formed Climate Technology Centre, the implementing arm of the UNFCCC’s Technology Mechanism
The purpose of FC-ES is to create a global alliance of national engineering organisations which can help each other step forward to help their own respective governments in dealing with the technological challenges of climate change. Countries need to write national energy plans, which, in turn, beget national climate change plans and engineers can be pivotal in this process.
Crowdsourcing Accountability: DecisionMakr Rankings Day 9 - How did the ministers fare?
Over one million engineers from over 23 countries are represented in the FC-ES project. They strive to produce the priority deliverable: the national climate and energy plans mentioned above. Where possible, they collaborate with the national governments. There can be difficulties at the engineering organisationcivil service interface, as different bodies learn to trust each other and to overcome the ‘not invented here’ syndrome. One aim of the alliance is to learn from collective experience, for example, how can plans be standardised to enable national arguments to be integrated into the global context? Another purpose of the FC-ES that is slowly dawning on us is how useful such an alliance could be when faced with some of the grim scenarios which are becoming increasingly plausible – a sort of triage argument. We will be a network of learned societies in touch with those developing technical solutions; those used to working and collaborating with each other; and those that could replicate any good solutions and innovative technologies that are developed. FC-ES is in attendance at COP18. An information leaflet has been widely distributed to raise awareness of the network, especially among government representatives,
.
Today's DecisionMakr round-up brings you highlights from ministers who have arrived to deliver their pitches. As many App users have recorded parts of their statements, we will hold these as benchmarks to see how flexible ministers are in the final negotiations. Republic of Korea's three words for the COP – “historical, unique, special” – roused the crowd. @bengoldfarb13 added three more: "inert, roadblocked, fruitless." We will see which of these three words will hold true after this weekend. The DecisionMakr smartphone and web App allows Twitter users to rate the quality and content of negotiators’ statements. DecisionMakr is available free at the Apple iPhone App Store and at www.DecisionMakr.org. Follow the action on Twitter @DecisionMakr.
9
COP 18 | DAY 10
Responsible energy in Alberta Diana McQueen Minister of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Alberta, Canada is one of the few regions in the world delivering energy to meet a growing consumer demand. This means our work on environmental stewardship, energy efficiency, and climate change is the subject of global interest. Alberta’s oil sands are a source of both optimism and controversy. Sometimes, real facts get lost between the extremes. Those who think the climate war will be won or lost in Alberta’s oil sands should know that Canada accounts for only 2% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the oil sands account for less than 0.15%. But that does not mean we are not taking action. Alberta was the first North American jurisdiction to regulate all large emitters to reduce emissions by 12% or pay $15 per carbon tonne over target. The demand for energy comes from the choices we all make. Our world must transition to cleaner energy, but that is not going to happen overnight. In the meantime, Alberta is committed to global-scale reductions and investing in clean energy research and innovation. Our actions are achieving real results. Since 2007, more than 32 million tonnes of GHG emissions have been reduced from business as usual and $312 million has been paid into a clean energy technology fund. So far, the fund has leveraged $4 in private investment for every $1 the government invests. More than $167 million has already been invested into 30 different clean energy projects, including carbon capture and storage (CCS). Alberta firmly supports CCS as a safe way to reduce GHG emissions and as a vital tool in our fight against climate change. We are not alone in this pursuit. In fact, CCS was recognised as a key technology under the global climate change strategy at last year’s meetings in Durban. The Alberta government has committed $1.5 billion into three Alberta-based CCS projects. In October, Shell Canada announced construction to begin on their Quest carbon sequestration project. Once complete, it will capture one million tonnes of CO2 from the oil sands – equivalent to taking 175,000 cars off the road. Combined, the three projects will reduce GHG emissions by 4.1 million tonnes every year after 2015. This is a significant reduction from business as usual.
10
As the demand for energy grows, the world must tap into CCS if we are to achieve large-scale reductions. Like any new technology, initial costs are high, but experience has shown that these costs will come down as we learn more. Alberta is working with experts from around the world to examine the technical, environmental, safety and monitoring requirements for every stage of CCS implementation. We will share this information with the global CCS community so the cost can be reduced over time. At the end of the day, climate change is a global concern, and we need to work together for a global solution. Albertans have never shied away from hard work when we know we are doing the right thing for the environment, the economy and our livelihood. We know the world expects us to develop our natural resources in a responsible and sustainable way. Albertans have the same expectations. We are taking a bold new approach to build a strong environmental framework. We call it integrated resource management. It includes: • a 50-year plan to support growth, communities and the environment under a provincial land-use framework; • a comprehensive province-wide environmental monitoring, evaluation, and reporting system; and • a single oil and gas regulator held to strict energy and environmental standards, while improving efficiency and public safety. We know we still have a lot of work to do, but the groundwork has been laid. For example, the joint CanadaAlberta monitoring program will improve our ability to detect changes in the air, water, land and wildlife, and manage the cumulative effects of oil sands development. Without a doubt, this resource holds great promise. It gives us an opportunity to demonstrate cutting-edge technology in our global quest to balance environmental stewardship with economic development
.
MORE INFO http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca
Quest carbon sequestration project: http://bit.ly/Q74SRl
pic: Shell Oil Scotford complex located near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta was the first to exclusively process synthetic crude oil from Alberta’s oil sands, by Darren Kirby
COP 18 | DAY 10
Will a New Market-based Mechanism open up a new world for the private sector? Narae Lee Inter-American Development Bank Group and Johns Hopkins University The international community has come a long way since the first Rio Summit, more formally known as the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), in 1992. Over the last 20 years, the world has welcomed the creation of the UNFCCC and witnessed the Kyoto Protocol – the first legally binding international treaty on climate change to include targets and timetables – come into force. Although a few of the attempts to advance efforts to mitigate climate change have not yet met expectations, the concerned nations have continued to strive to accomplish these targets, whilst adapting them to reflect the changing environment. COP18, in Doha, is expected to mark a big step in climate change negotiations, showing substantial progression on the Durban Platform discussions and assisting in defining the post-Kyoto era. The New Marketbased Mechanism (NMM) is expected to be one of the key discussion topics during the session. Market mechanisms adopted during the first commitment of the Kyoto Protocol introduced a ‘carbon market’, where carbon is priced and sold in the public policy arena, with the aim of lowering overall costs of achieving the emission targets, and attracting more resources. In addition to mitigation impacts, the mechanisms have made the private sector’s participation in the carbon market visible and enabled bottom-up private sector involvement on both the supply and demand side. The activation of social responsibility by private companies through profitable economic activity, which also provides an entry point into developing markets, should be applauded and is a good model for public-private partnerships going. During 20092010, amongst a variety of sources for climate finance to developing countries, private finance, including offset markets, was responsible for 57% of the total inflow, far exceeding the public sector finance. Experience shows that the largest share of emission reductions (approximately 85%) has been obtained through the direct involvement of private entities through the Kyoto Protocol framework. Therefore, in the future, engaging the private sector in the international climate change framework will remain as key to success as it was during the Kyoto era. To scale up private sector’s participation, first of all, the negotiators at Doha should provide an overarching framework for the NMM. The increasing number of national marketbased mechanisms that have been launched lately, or will come into existence soon, confirms that market mechanisms are an efficient tool for climate change mitigation. However, a fragmented approach amongst the parties involved could
increase transaction costs and investment uncertainty for the private sector participants. It could also lead to failure of a robust carbon pricing regime domestically and lower the carbon price internationally. It is important to signal to the private sector that, regarding the current market mechanisms, the UNFCCC will serve to create more clarity and consistency within international climate change policy. Secondly, there is a need for an organised effort to increase funding mechanisms. With a sectoral approach most likely to be adopted for the NMM – in contrast to the project-based approach under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – the scheme of the investment is expected to increase, and so is the risk for free-riding. If international finance could provide risk leverage through credit-lines with low interest rates, specifically targeting projects that are aligned with countries’ Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) or investment guarantees, it will significantly mitigate investment risk for the private sector. In this regard, the Doha session should also endorse the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as the operating entity of the UNFCCC, to streamline climate funding from the public and private sectors. In order to bridge the emission gap, mitigation action needs to be scaled up significantly. The Kyoto protocol has been partially successful by attracting the private sector’s interest in climate change market mechanisms. Building on the lessons from existing market-based mechanisms, the NMM should provide an even more attractive environment to encourage increased participation from the private sector
.
pic: by Phase Locked Loop
11
COP 18 | DAY 10
Shifting agendas: From response to resilience Hayley Coleman Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Europe The role of the engineer in disaster risk reduction “By our actions we can either disasters or diminish them.”
compound
Ban Ki Moon, Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2011 As the international community is well aware, the frequency and impact of disasters is increasing, whether measured by loss of life or economic costs. This trend is set to continue as the risks associated with climate change are compounded by rapid urbanisation and environmental degradation. In 2010, 300 million people were affected by disasters, and according to recent studies, the number of people living in cities that are vulnerable to earthquakes and cyclones will treble by 2050. There are also over 30 million people who are currently displaced, having fled conflict or persecution. Estimates claim that by 2050, 200 million more migrants may be fleeing the effects of climate change. Our collective ability to reduce the risk of disaster will increasingly define the 21st century, and it is within forums such as COP18 that the global community can discuss ways to combat this on-going threat to society. Civil engineers should be central players in the fight against climate change, and as such, this profession must recognise its role in enabling communities to survive as well as to thrive.
technical communities to inform decision-making. This places disaster risk reduction within the engineering community’s realm of responsibility. It is time for civil engineers to acknowledge the fundamental role they have to play in reducing the vulnerability of mankind, and for the broader community of decisionmakers and built environment professionals to recognise the importance of civil engineers’ work in ongoing and future discussions on climate change
.
In the last 30 years we have seen an increasing recognition of the vital role that engineers play in humanitarian response, as they provide clean water, sanitation and shelter, and build the roads, bridges and buildings needed to facilitate delivery of food and medical supplies. Over the same period, advances in science and technology have enabled us to better predict the forces of nature, and construct taller and more complex structures that are able to better withstand extreme events, thus raising the technological level at which civil engineers are able to practice. Yet the uncertainties of climate change, and the pace of urbanisation, challenge the ‘predict and prevent’ paradigm that has underpinned geo-hazard engineering to date, whilst recent disasters have emphasised the limitations of international response. A new approach is required, which prioritises creating resilient communities which are able to respond and adapt to changing circumstances and unexpected catastrophes, and increases the importance of the civil engineers within global forums.
12
The need for fresh action was recognised in 2005 when 168 countries signed the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA): a 10 year action plan to make the world safer from natural hazards. This has catalysed global efforts (mostly by governments and non-governmental organisations) to reduce risk. The mid-term evaluation of the HFA highlighted the importance of making disaster risk reduction central to urban planning and infrastructure investments, as well as the need to actively engage and support scientific and
pic: Tropical Cyclone Bianca 2001, NASA Earth Observatory
MORE INFO This article is based on a synopsis of a lecture at Brunel lecture by Jo da Silva, OBE, Director at Arup International Development.
www.ice.org.uk/Pages/Brunel
COP 18 | DAY 10
COP18 side event calendar
FRIDAY 7th DECEMBER
THURSDAY 6th DECEMBER
DATE TIME
VENUE
TITLE
ORGANISERS
10:00-12:00
Sahara Forest room, Hall 3
Student simulation of climate change negotiations
Sahara Forest Project and Bellona
11:30—13:00
Side Event Room 8
Benefits beyond REDD+, forests and agriculture: Landscape approaches to restoration
IUCN
11:30—13:00
Side Event Room 6
Safeguarding the socio-economic benefits of sustainable forest management and other climate finance
CISDL and EQPF
13:15 – 14:45
Side Event Room 6
The role of the UN in achieving Climate-Smart Agriculture
UNCCD, ECA, UNEP, UN Women)
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 8
Local governments raising level of ambition and co-benefits of local sustainable development
ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 10
Exploring the Link between Climate Change and its Impact on the Livelihoods Women Environmental Programme (WEP) of Farmers
15:00 – 16:30
Side Event Room 7
The Role of Arab Business in the Transition to Low-Carbon Economy
Arab Forum for Environment and Development
15:00 – 16:30
Side Event Room 4
UN-system: Managing disaster risks and extreme events under a changing climate
WFP, ISDR, UN Women, UNCCD
16:45—18:15
Side Event Room 6
Low-Carbon Climate Resilient Development: The Kenyan Experience
IISD and Kenya
16:45—18:15
Side Event Room 8
NAMAs : Élaboration d’un guide et d’une plateforme collaborative pour les pays francophones.
Organisation internationale de la francophonie (OIF/IEPF)
18:30—20:00
Side Event Room 4
Pathways to Sustainable Energy Systems: Opportunities and Challenges
Germany and GIZ
18:30—20:00
Side Event Room 10
Environmental integrity and community acceptance of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Ltd and NRDC
18:30—20:00
Side Event Room 5
Turkey’s Move towards a Low Carbon Economy and the Role of Private Sector
Turkish Industrialist's and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD)
20:15—21:45
Side Event Room 6
Mainstreaming Mountains in the Climate Agenda: The Context of Mountain Initiative and Rio+20
Nepal and Clean Energy Nepal (CEN)
20:15—21:45
Side Event Room 5
Turkey’s Move towards a Low Carbon Economy and the Role of Private Sector
Turkish Industrialist's and Businessmen's Association
20:15—21:45
Side Event Room 7
Meeting the climate challenge: Mexico’s contribution to a low carbon development.
Mexico and Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental
11:30—13:00
Side Event Room 6
Successfully curbing tropical forest loss in Brazil: emerging policy lessons for REDD+
Amazon Institute of People and the Environment (Imazon)
11:30—13:00
Side Event Room 7
Ethical and religious insights on the climate crisis
World Council of Churches (WCC)
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 8
Experiences of tropical agriculture facing climate change: The Costa Rican case
Costa Rica and Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE)
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 7
Implications for Monitoring, Mitigation, and Management at the Air QualityClimate Change Nexus
Yale University
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 10
Developing REDD+ Safeguard Systems: Lessons from Brazil, Indonesia, Cameroon and Mexico
Center of Life Institute (ICV)
13:15—14:45
Side Event Room 6
The Chemical Industry's Contribution to Building Energy Efficiency and GHG Reduction
International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and European Business Council for Sustainable Energy
Be PaperSmart: Read Outreach online 4 easy steps to using the Quick Response (QR) Code COP18 is a ‘PaperSmart’ conference so we are encouraging our readers to subscribe on our mobile optimised website to receive the daily e-version of Outreach: www.stakeholderforum. org/sf/outreach, or download today’s edition by scanning the QR code.
1. Download a QR code reader on your phone or tablet 2. Open the QR code reader 3. Scan the QR Code with your camera 4. Today's Outreach pdf will automatically download to your phone or tablet
13
COP 18 | DAY 10
Reflections from COP18, Wednesday 5 December Luke McGreevy
Luke Kemp
On the second Wednesday of COP18, the first informal ministerial round table discussions were the highlight of the day. Several members of the youth NGO constituency to the UNFCCC, known as YOUNGO, received passes to be able to hear officials discuss the issues that are most crucial to their country.
COP18 has made it clear that business as usual is no longer an option in regards to the climate regime, and this includes the decision-making of the UNFCCC.
Global Voices, Australia
The meeting opened with a keynote speech from UN SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General emphasised the need for political leadership in the climate change negotiations, and highlighted that all areas of government need to be involved in working on climate change policies. He also suggested that strategic partnerships between government, the private sector and civil society will be critical in the coming years. He announced that he is considering bringing together world leaders in 2014 to discuss climate change, to build momentum for the work on the Durban Platform in 2015. As each country began to address the issues most crucial to expanding climate change efforts domestically, a number of themes began to emerge. As was noted by one of the Co-Chairs during the discussions, there was a lot of consensus around increased ambition of carbon-reduction pledges, especially in the pre-2020 period. There was also some acknowledgement of the positive moves made by France, Germany and the United Kingdom in the last few days, in dedicating funds to help finance mitigation and adaptation programmes in developing countries. Areas still needing further discussion included, increasing the amount of finance available for mitigation and adaptation programmes, which many developing countries highlighted was the only way they could further their already significant domestic actions. The issue of equity and the principles of the UNFCCC were also discussed in-depth, and Parties appeared to be talking past one another as little common ground was found on what the actual responsibility of developed and developing countries respectively should be. Overall, while many speakers emphasised the importance of keeping global temperature rise below 2â °C, there were few signs that this goal is still achievable, due to the lack of ambition currently witnessed in these negotiations.
Outreach is made possible by the support of
Australian National University, Fenner School of Environment and Society
Consensus has become one of the rules that we love to hate in the UNFCCC. It has given laggards and blockers a veto over the past years and has led to many stalled negotiations, late nights and missed opportunities. This issue has led to a proposal by Mexico and Papua New Guinea, to introduce majority voting into the COP, an item that has been discussed in Doha. No contact group was established on this, but instead negotiations have been undertaken through bi-laterals and informal discussions. The transparency issues of this process aside, it has become quite clear that this proposal will not be passed at COP18, but instead will be forwarded to the agenda of COP19. Interestingly, consensus is not even the official rule of the COP; it is simply an informal default procedure that is used in the vacuum of having no rules of procedure. The COP never managed to agree to its rules of procedure originally and has essentially operated for two decades without any. One rule (15.3) that is enshrined in the UNFCCC is that amendments to the Convention itself can be made through a three quarters majority vote. Majority voting can be implemented through a majority vote – meaning that this is not a political impossibility for post-COP18 negotiations. The problem, as always, is power politics. It has become apparent that many States do not wish to lose their veto over a process which can fundamentally affect their national interests. This is especially important for the superpowers of negotiations. It is unlikely that the US will find it fair to have the same voting ability as a Small Island State. Yet, there is potential for creative compromise, such as weighting voting to reflect GDP or emissions. The concept of majority voting, whether it is weighted or not, has been flying under the radar of negotiations, especially for civil society. However, recently, YOUNGO has officially adopted support of the majority voting proposal as a group position. It is vital that this issue receives further attention through negotiations and the wider public. Why? Because majority voting may be one of the few ways forward for a process that is now being seen as a multilateral zombie
.