Coverage of Selected Side Events at UNFCCC COP 21

In this event, chaired by Angela Oels, Lund University, panelists presented key research findings from the EU Cost Action IS1101 publication ‘Climate Change and Migration.’

Jürgen Scheffran, Hamburg University, presented on the root causes of climate change migration. He referred to studies finding climate change to be a threat multiplier, but underscored the multicausal and complex nature of migration, calling for sophisticated models to constructively analyze the complex climate-migration-conflict nexus.

Oels discussed narratives of climate change and migration, highlighting three main discourses: fearing climate refugees; saving climate refugees; and defining migration as a rational adaptation strategy. Underscoring that there is still time to take political decisions against climate change that threatens lives and islands, she suggested an alternative discourse referring to “climate warriors.”

Giovanni Bettini, Lancaster University, considered expectations for COP 21 with regards to human migration, noting, inter alia, that the issue may be too political for the current state of negotiations. He suggested that the UNFCCC may not be the appropriate forum for migration policy discussions, pointing to the “Northern” character of environmental discourses that view climate refugees from the global South as a security threat.

François Gemenne, SciencesPo/Liège University, spoke on the “anthropocene and its victims,” explaining that while human beings are now the key drivers of climatic transformation, most humans are in fact victims rather than drivers. Referring to “climate refugees” as victims of political persecution, he suggested that the term could highlight the need to protect those displaced by climate change as victims of political violence.

Koko Warner, United Nations University, presented research in the Pacific region, covering Vanuatu, Kiribati and Nauru, showing that 40-70% of residents think migration will be a necessary response to climate impacts such as sea level rises, storms and floods. She suggested Paris is a unique opportunity to address mobility in a legally-binding agreement, and to set out a practical medium-term pathway through COP decisions.

Diana Liverman, University of Arizona, pointed to the importance of research design when analyzing linkages between climate change and migration or conflict, including appropriate control groups to give attention to gender-related issues and assess reasons for migration as well as reasons people do not migrate.

Andrew Baldwin, Durham University, underscored the multifaceted relationship between climate change and migration, stating the need for concerted attention of social science and humanities scholars. Discussions followed, on, inter alia: the consequences of migration; the difference between current and historic patterns of migration; the interpretation of climate change as a narrow category; and the impact of climate-induced migration from Syria on the UNFCCC negotiations.

Contacts:

• Angela Oels (Coordinator) | angela.oels@svet.lu.se

More Information:

• www.lucsus.lu.se
• www.lancaster.ac.uk/lec/
• www.clisap.de

This side event, moderated by Grace Balawag, Tebtebba, heard from five expert panelists who shared community experiences from Latin America, Africa and Asia on how Indigenous Peoples are using their traditional knowledge, practices and innovations to adapt to climate change and achieve food security. Presentations considered the need for more direct support of such climate resilience efforts by the GCF.

Tarcila Rivera Zea, Executive Director, CHIRAPAQ (Centre for Indigenous Cultures in Peru), spoke about indigenous experience and climate-related traditional knowledge in Peru. She outlined intergenerational women’s initiatives that share and preserve knowledge around seeds, helping maintain native varieties which are essential for coping with extreme weather variability, and therefore adapting to climate change. She called for such sustainable resource management and traditional knowledge preservation to be more explicitly recognized by the GCF.

Vu Thi Hien, Centre of Research and Development in Upland Areas (CERDA), Vietnam, shared experience of a capacity building project for community-based REDD+ in the Thai Nguyen province, Vietnam. She noted initial challenges, including: a local poverty rate of 50%; a low level of household access to forest land; negative climate change impacts; and illegal logging. She described that the project addresses, inter alia, community forest tenure and customary governance, and highlighted that new community institutions have helped reduce illegal logging and led to the legal recognition of a village convention on forest protection.

Jo Ann Guillao, Tebtebba, talked about community-based monitoring and information systems, concluding that they are crucial for achieving a transformative development agenda. She said monitoring, when accompanied by appropriate indicators, helps Indigenous Peoples have full access and rights over their resources, and also helps to combat the negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity and related knowledge, innovations and practices of local communities.

Stanley Kimaren, Executive Director, Indigenous Livelihood Enhancement Partners (ILEPA), Kenya, stated that our flawed development pathways have so far been “for a few at the expense of most,” noting that this can also apply to climate change responses, including forced displacement in the name of conservation and climate change. He stated the GCF has a “do no harm” approach, but lamented a negative shift for Indigenous Peoples, as their status and recognition have been diminished regarding GCF board activities, contrary to emerging international practice.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, reminded participants that Indigenous Peoples have always undertaken very low-carbon development paths. She urged participants to consider resilient traditional livelihoods and how they fit into the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. She urged the GCF to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights internationally and establish a small-grants window to improve their access to small grants for climate adaptation.

In the ensuing discussion, participants raised concerns about forced displacement of Indigenous Communities and the negative impacts funding can have on fueling intracommunity conflict. Tauli-Corpuz pointed out that “in-fighting” is not unique among Indigenous Communities, and preassessments can help expose underlying vulnerabilities and power dynamics.

Contacts:

• Raymond De Chavez, Tebtebba Foundation | raymond@tebtebba.org
• Celia Acasio, CHIRAPAQ (Centre for Indigenous Cultures in Peru) | warmi@chirapaq.org.pe

More Information:

• http://tebtebba.org/

This event considered perspectives of the carbon market post-Paris and was moderated by Andrei Marcu, CEPS.

Lars Zetterberg, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd, explained the need to broaden the size of carbon markets to increase liquidity, contain carbon costs and increase participation which could regulate emissions. He called on UN support for international cooperative approaches, and to facilitate a broader scope of those participating in carbon markets trading schemes.

Marcu presented perspectives on the negotiating text regarding market-based mechanisms, underscoring that even though the Paris agreement cannot establish a global carbon price, it should create conditions for the emergence of an international market for compliance with Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). He noted that the negotiating text recognizes the concept of transferability indirectly, explaining the political sensitivities of specific language on the operation of market-based mechanisms.

In a panel discussion, Thomas Sterner, University of Gothenburg, stressed that for carbon markets to succeed, negotiations need to consider property rights as fundamental, and that without fairness, property rights cannot exist. He explained the importance of “natural demand” which, he noted, does not exist for reduction credits.

Jean-Yves Caneill, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), called for a centralized mechanism that can streamline the current national efforts to control emissions and carbon prices. He noted lessons from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), and called for a better understanding of property rights to ensure the smooth linking of carbon markets. He however cautioned that although linking of these markets could reduce costs, it also raises the risk that problems in one market may affect other markets.

Christina Hood, International Energy Agency (IEA), highlighted some contextual differences between negotiating the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement, including that the status of markets as a solution to climate change has been significantly lowered, and that all countries now have greenhouse gas commitments covering their entire economies which was only true of some during negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol. She called for the Paris agreement to provide assurances that, if market mechanisms will be used, these will adhere to high environmental integrity standards and double accounting will be avoided.

Participants then discussed, inter alia, concerns about the politically-correct language on market based mechanisms in the negotiating text; the need to ensure that the ambition levels are increased if transfers are used; and the determination of the cost of carbon.

Contacts:

• Wijnand Stoefs, CEPS | wijnand.stoefs@ceps.eu

More Information:

• www.ceps.eu

This side event, moderated by Alex Taylor, Euronews, addressed developments and pathways towards low-carbon electricity, stressing its importance for sustainable development.

Marc Gratton, Executive Director, Électriciens Sans Frontières, stressed that communities without electricity and those most exposed to climate change often coincide. He noted that low-carbon energy is now at the center of the international agenda and, following technological leaps, universal access to electricity is no longer a dream.

António Mexia, CEO of Energias de Portugal (EDP) and President of Eurelectric, focused on four pillars regarding energy production, consumption and efficiency, namely: electrification, taxation, innovation and gerenalization. He underscored, inter alia, that: electrification is key to fighting climate change; a CO2 price is crucial; both public support and private investment are necessary; and political will, as well as a stable investment framework, are prerequisites for any meaningful change.

Bertrand Piccard, President, Solar Impulse, highlighted that “climate change is just the symptom or our crazy way to waste energy,” coming predominantly from fossil fuel use. He noted that even without climate change, it would make sense to switch to new energy production systems and underscored the importance of a legal framework supporting energy efficiency and disincentivizing energy waste.

Jean-Louis Borloo, President, Energy for Africa, lamented that despite our technological and financial progress, the majority of inhabitants in Africa still lack access to electricity. He noted that “the force of habit” constitutes a significant obstacle to behavior change regarding energy use, and stressed that the public and private sectors need to collectively address existing problems.

Henri Lachmann, Schneider Electric, stressed that clean electricity is the energy of the future, and called for industry to provide access to energy while helping people consume “better and less.” He underlined that specific objectives need to be reassessed regularly to ensure we stay on the right path.

Francesco Venturini, CEO, Enel Green Power, described electrification projects in South Africa and Kenya, underscoring the importance of a stable regulatory framework that provides security to new investments. He noted that while specific goals exist, the overall vision is still vague.

François Brottes, President, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité (RTE), highlighted the role of the grid as the stabilizing agent for electricity generation, noting that the more wind or solar farms are connected, the more stable the system becomes. He stressed that with local or centralized systems, consumption levels still have to be reduced and consumption made more efficient generally.

In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: competition between fossil fuels and renewable energy; missing factors for a wider uptake of mini-grid solutions; ways to involve individuals in energy efficiency; and energy consumption and efficiency in urban populations.

Contacts:

• Anne Chenu, UFE | anne.chenu@ufe-electricite.fr

More Information:

• www.ufe-electricite.fr
• www.electriciens-sans-frontieres.org/
• www.eurelectric.org

This side event, moderated by Michael Leering, ISO’s Climate Change Coordinating Committee (CCCC), discussed the development of next generation international standards as a critical element for responding to climate change. The event focused on: collaboration among standard-setting organizations; how to progress standard setting to respond to climate needs; and what approaches, methodologies and sectors should be prioritized.

Tod Delaney, Chair of ISO’s CCCC, presented on ISO climate change standards as a way to facilitate trade, disseminate advancements in technology and inform regulations. He said the CCCC comprises stakeholders representing government, NGO and industry in developed and developing countries, and has established working groups for climate adaptation and mitigation.

Tom Baumann, GHGMI, talked about the development of, training in, and vision for next generation standards. He urged for more agile, dynamic and participatory standard setting to facilitate bottom-up solutions and integration into market-based processes and digital technologies.

Ira Feldman, GHGMI, presented on standards for climate adaptation. He reminded participants that adaptation does not diminish the need for mitigation, and outlined research for future ISO work that is prioritizing standards relating to vulnerability assessment, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation in specific areas including resilient cities, coastal areas, water, food, energy and transportation.

Chikako Makino, ISO’s CCCC, presented a new climate standard (ISO 14080) being developed in Indonesia with support from Japan, to be operational in 2017-2018. The Standard aims to respond to market and stakeholder expectations for improved transparency and consistency, and will address elements such as products’ energy intensity.

Joe Madden, CEO of EOS Climate, presented a market perspective on climate standards, with experience from California’s cap and trade system. He said markets are only able to differentiate commodities – for instance oil or palm oil – if they have credible carbon intensity information available, highlighting this as the “most useful thing” that standards can provide.

Owen Hewlett, Gold Standard Foundation, outlined Gold Standards on land use, energy and water, and considered how standards can address certain environmental tradeoffs – for instance between water and energy, and land use and energy – by developing legitimate stakeholder decision-making mechanisms.

In the discussion, moderated by Nick Blyth, Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA), participants considered where demand for international standards comes from and whether the voluntary nature of INDCs poses a challenge for international standards.

Contacts:

• Michael Gillenwater, GHGMI (Coordinator) | michael.gillenwater@ghginstitute.org
• Linda Zaech, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) | zaech@iso.org

More Information:

• https://ghginstitute.org/2015/10/20/save-the-date-cop21-dont-miss-our-side-event/

Moderator Tim Dixon, IEAGHG, opened the session discussing experiences in CCS projects. He underscored the importance of a portfolio of technologies to reduce emissions, highlighting that costs of stabilizing CO2 concentrations at 450 ppm by 2100 will increase by 138% without CCS.

Philip Ringrose, Statoil, presented offshore CCS operations in the North Sea region, underscoring that projects in place over the last 19 years have enabled the safe underground storage of 20 Mt CO2. He encouraged sharing experiences internationally to build confidence in CCS.

Ton Wildenborg, CO2GeoNet, presented on CO2 storage projects in Europe, including: the 2007-2013 Ketzin project in Germany that has stored 67 kt CO2 through injection into a saline aquifer reservoir; and the K12-B offshore project that has, since 2004, injected 102 kt CO2 into a gas field storage site at 4000m depth. He emphasized CO2GeoNet’s successful track record for collaborative research and highlighted opportunities for collaboration with developing countries.

Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan, Canada, spoke on the political context of CCS projects from a public policy perspective, underscoring the importance of regulation for project implementation. He suggested Canada could play a leading role in technological solutions for “cleaning up coal.”

Mike Marsh, CEO, SaskPower, presented an overview of the Boundary Dam project, the first in the world to fully integrate a CCS facility to a coal-fired power plant. He explained the project has engineered solutions to technical issues identified in its first year of service, and hopes to capture 800 kt CO2 in 2016.

Katherine Romanak, University of Texas at Austin, highlighted the great potential of offshore basins to increase geological storage of CO2. She described the Task Force on Offshore Storage of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, explaining its purpose to assess opportunities and technology needs and share technology strengths to accelerate the deployment of offshore storage.

Jukka Uosukainen, Director, Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN), presented CTCN’s technical assistance work, underscoring the country-driven nature of the network that matches country needs with technology expertise, and is able to facilitate the development of bankable, concrete funding proposals.

In discussions, participants considered, inter alia: whether carbon policies are a prerequisite for CCS; policy mechanisms such as a carbon tax, the EU ETS, grant schemes, and emissions performance standards; and implications for Europe of the UK’s recent CCS policy change.

Contacts:

• Tim Dixon (Coordinator) | tim.dixon@ieaghg.org

More Information:

• www.cop21.co2geonet.com
• www.ieaghg.org

This side-event was chaired by Gabriel Blanco, Vice-Chair, Technology Executive Committee (TEC).

Heleen de Coninck, Radboud University, explained that, at the international level, the evaluation of technology interventions is absent and difficult to obtain. She called for strengthening local innovation systems and for promoting the Technology Mechanism in the Paris agreement.

Rob Byrne, University of Sussex, presented lessons for the Technology Mechanism from research on solar innovation systems in Kenya. He suggested expanding national designated entities to become dedicated innovation system builders generating knowledge nationally, creating coordinated projects and programmes, and communicating national priorities to the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN).

James Falzon, ECN, presented two projects aimed at building modeling capacity in Latin America and Africa to address complex climate change policy questions.

In the ensuing discussion initiated by Ambuj Sagar, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, and Cosmas Ochieng, African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Sagar underscored that, in the climate context “we are under the gun,” to hasten developing countries capabilities fast enough to address the climate problem. Ochieng cautioned that the climate regime could only facilitate technology transfer to a certain extent, as technology transfer typically occurs between private corporations.

Panelists then discussed, inter alia: the composition of the TEC; knowledge gaps in adaptation and in pro-poor and non-market-savvy technologies; the role of different technologies in climate models; innovation systems for adaptation; the role of intellectual property in technology transfer; the relative weight attached to mitigation and adaptation in the climate regime; and local innovation systems in developing countries.

Contacts:

• Rob Byrne (Coordinator) | r.p.Byrne@sussex.ac.uk
• James Falzon (Coordinator) | falzon@ecn.nl
• Heleen de Coninck (Coordinator) | h.deconinck@fnwi.ru.nl

More Information:

• http://steps-centre.org/
• http://climacap.org/
• http://steps-centre.org/event/cop21-side-event-mitigation-contributions-from-developing-countries/

This side event, moderated by Manfred Buch, Monitoring for Environment and Security in Africa (MESA), discussed the path towards sustainable agriculture to ensure the production, distribution and consumption of sufficient nutritious products, environmental sustainability and economic opportunities.

Rita Maria Zniber, CEO, Diana Holding, shared experiences arising from the Moroccan agro-industry development model. She provided an overview of the Green Morocco Plan, launched in 2008, and its tangible results, including increases in the number of agro-businesses, agricultural sector jobs, agricultural production and share of renewables in the sectoral energy mix. She then described the Diana Holding, providing insights regarding its activities, objectives and vision.

Enrique Diaz, President, Agrobanco, spoke about the Peruvian agricultural sector, which predominantly consists of micro- and small producers. He addressed, inter alia: agricultural financing and the role of Agrobanco as a state-owned development bank; the status quo of the Peruvian forestry sector, including its reforestation potential; cases of sustainable farming practices; and strategies to increase the share of major agricultural crops with the potential to mitigate GHG emissions.

Claude Fromageot, Director, Yves Rocher Foundation, outlined the Foundation’s activities, including planting 50 million trees around the world, and doubling that number by 2020. He underscored, among others: links between biodiversity and health; the need to change mindsets and mentalities of farmers and consumers; and the importance of tiny actions that may induce significant change in the future.

Michel Denis, President and CEO, Manitou Group, addressed the issue of material handling, noting that the Manitou Group is a leader in designing, assembling and distributing professional handling equipment around the world. He focused on challenges, including: reducing emissions; reducing fuel consumption; managing the machine’s lifecycle and its total cost of ownership; and adapting to new usage patterns. He underscored the need to raise awareness of environmental issues among farmers and change behavioral patterns, as well as the Group’s efforts to reduce the total cost of ownership and the environmental footprint of the company’s products.

Participants then discussed strategies to adapt agricultural production to climate change as well as farmers’ rights vis-à-vis national agricultural policies.

Contacts:

• Manfred Buch, Monitoring for Environment and Security in Africa (MESA) | manfred.buch@hd-mesa.org

More Information:

• www.ieta.org
• www.wbcsd.org

Andrei Marcu, CEPS, introduced findings from five case studies on the impact of climate change mitigation policies. He cautioned that impacts can be positive and negative, domestic and transnational, and affect all pillars of sustainable development. He explained that impacts can and should be managed and that domestic tools for their management include: cost alleviation; domestic safety nets; timing; and planning and management. He also highlighted tools to manage this impact at the international level including capacity building, technology transfer and finance.

Commenting on the Maldives case study, Abdhullahi Majeed, Minister of State for Environment and Energy, Maldives, welcomed the CEPS study as a good mapping of implications of climate change mitigation policies, emphasizing the need for Small Island Developing States to build enough capacity “to stand on our two feet.”

Commenting on the Ghanaian case study, Fredua Agyeman, Chief Director, Ministry for Environment, Science, Technology and Innovation, Ghana, called for considering capacity building and better means for assessing the impact of mitigation policies.

Christophe Clemente, Solvay, commented on the case study on soda ash, underscoring carbon leakage as an unintended negative impact of the implementation of the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

Amb. Khalid Abuleif, Saudi Arabia, shared insights on national experience with transition and economic diversification under great environmental constraints.

Amb. Tomasz Chruszczow, Poland, shared insights on Poland’s recent transition from a country with hyper-inflation to an EU member state, underscoring the “limits to social endurance” and the need to manage social expectations.

Commenting on the case study on food labeling, Aaron Cosbey, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), explained that cocoa labels may render small operators less competitive and push them out of business. He explained that negative impacts can be managed through, inter alia, capacity building and adequate timelines for transitioning.

Contacts:

• Andrei Marcu | andrei.marcu@ceps.eu

More Information:

• www.ceps-ech.eu/article/climate-sustainable-growth