Where in the World is the Pacific?

IMG_0297

Over the last three days at COY10 I have been on a hunt. A hunt for something truly elusive, other Pacific Island Youth. Though I came to Lima with the New Zealand Youth Delegation, I am originally from Fiji, having lived most of my life there. For the last five years I have researched about, written papers on and presented conference papers about the impacts that Climate Change will have on the Pacific region.

COY10 was a smelting pot of ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity. With youth participants from all over the world present, from Latin America, Europe, Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Australia and New Zealand, they came in droves. Yet amongst all these participants, the Pacific Youth were conspicuously absent. Some struggled to even geographically place the region. The lack of Pacific Youth representation was exacerbated by the near invisibility of content pertaining to the impacts that Climate Change is and will continue to have on the Pacific.

When I talk about the Pacific, I don’t mean Asia Pacific, I mean the region comprised of Polynesia, Micronesia and Melanesia, spanning from Rapanui to Hawaii to the Palau and Papua New Guinea. The Pacific and its people are on the forefront of the Climate Change battle. However for the people of this region Climate Change isn’t a complicated far removed or questioned phenomenon. It is the simple fact that our tides sit higher than ever before and our land is slowly washing away. It is the fact that salt water is seeping into our land, killing crops and spoiling fresh drinking water. It is the fact that our fish and coral are dying as our seas change and grow warmer. Pacific youth have been marshalling against these changes with initiatives like the 350 Pacific Warrior movement taking up this fight. Yet on the ground here in Lima, we have no mouthpiece to advocate our position or to even share our stories.

The impacts I discuss here are oversimplified, because the issues facing the Pacific are hugely complicated. Yet as the Pacific continues to face the looming possibility with no food, water, land or even our oceans our voices are being stifled. Millions of Pacific people are now being faced with the options of sinking, starving or swimming to stay alive. A situation of life and death, which means having youth representation at events like COP and COY all the more necessary. However their notable absence highlights some of the fundamental issues with Climate Change mitigation and adaption in the region.

Firstly the issue of money, as Pacific Islands are small with GDP’s to match. Therefore there are limited funds for mitigating and adapting to the impacts of Climate Change. Meaning there is limited money to get their official country delegations to these conferences, let alone youth delegates. Moreover when you live on small islands, funding, fundraising, donor and sponsorship opportunities are scarce. Especially when a single plane ticket from Fiji to reach these conferences is upwards of FJD$10,000, an amount that continues to increase the remoter you are.

This brings me to the second point, remoteness. Some may not like me calling the Pacific remote, believing us to be the center of the world. However when your country is separated by at least a three to four hour plane ride or a few days boat ride and all that lies between you is ocean, then remote is the only way to describe it. Our remoteness means we are often overlooked or often overwhelmed or drowned out. In order to combat this we need to start looking less at the Pacific as small island nations and instead as large ocean nations. Moreover we need to shift away from the dominant discourse of Asia Pacific and allow the Pacific to become their own regional bloc. Though we have membership and more equitable representation in bodies such as the Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) and the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), not all Pacific Island nations are SIDS or SIS.

Fundamentally our remoteness and money should not be inhibitors to our youth making their voices heard on issues of Climate Change. Especially when they have the potential to impact us so greatly. We were told at the COY10 opening ceremony that youth are no longer the leaders of tomorrow; rather they are the leaders of today. So the question now becomes: where are our leaders ?

Posted on by Kya Lal

Fasting For The Climate

FullSizeRender

Hanger (hungry anger) was brewing amongst the NZYD team today as we all took part in the #fastfortheclimate campaign. Fast For Climate is a growing movement of youth, environmentalists and people of faith who are showing their strength of commitment by going without food. They do this once a month to call for world leaders to do more to solve the climate crisis. Today was that day and we all got behind it for the first time.

Following the vigil held in Parque la Floresta last night, I felt both humbled and empowered to take control of my actions and make this particular one count. At lunch we gathered in the main eating area and set up tables to sit down and not eat at. The demonstration attracted great attention from COP attendees as well as media and was crucial in raising awareness about the plight.

Adding to my own hanger though is the fact that I’m hungry and complaining about it, when it’s millions of people’s reality as a result of climate change. Many around the world are forced to fast because climate change has caused drought, flooding, natural disasters and crop failure in their region. Often these people are those who contribute the least to CO2 emissions.

It’s time for us in New Zealand and other privileged countries to step up and take responsibility for the carbon footprint we are making. We need to stand in solidarity with victims of climate change consequences and show we not only understand our plight, but will pressure our governments to make change and have greater ambition to solve the climate crisis.

For more information or to get involved:

http://fastfortheclimate.org/en/

https://www.facebook.com/fastfortheclimate

Posted on by Maddie Little

What’s at stake: NZYD’s stance on COP20

Negotiations have been going on for 20 years now, and next year the talks will truly come of age at COP 21, in Paris. There, negotiators have agreed to come to a new climate deal, which must apply to all states parties. Lima is crucial, as countries must come up with a draft text for the 2015 agreement in order to respect the procedural rules of the UN and leave enough time for countries to consider it before Paris.
So, just what are the key issues? What will NZYD be following closely during the next two weeks? And what do we think about it all? Read on.
The 2015 agreement
In Warsaw last year it was agreed that all parties will put forward proposals for their new emissions cuts, now known as “intended nationally determined contributions”, or INDCs.
A crucial issue is whether the Paris agreement will be legally binding, or merely a “soft law”, or political commitment that will not be binding under international law. Several countries, including Switzerland, the AOSIS (small island state) countries, Malta, Indonesia and Bangladesh are in favour of legally binding commitments. However, the US is not. New Zealand has put forward a proposal [link] whereby the agreement would not be legally binding, and proposed national contributions would be put forward in a schedule.
Closely linked to this issue is whether the new agreement will be bottom-up or top-down. Some parties want to select their own contributions depending on their national circumstances and capacities. This flexible, bottom-up approach aims to encourage universal participation from all Parties, and makes it easier for states like the US, which has to ratify any legally binding agreement through Congress. Other parties favour a top-down approach based on the latest scientific observations, and concepts like the carbon budget.
Another problem is whether and how there will be international consideration of INDCs. Countries are expected to put forward INDCs prior to the Paris conference, at the end of the first quarter of 2015 or as soon as is practicably possible thereafter. It is widely accepted that the total of the expected pre-Paris INDCs is very unlikely to come close to keeping the average global temperature increase below 2C. How can the agreement be strengthened in such a way that can bridge the gap between weak INDCs and the necessary emission reductions? One proposal is an ex-ante assessment process with two purposes: (1) assessing if individual INDCs are equitable and fair and (2) assessing if INDCs add up to enough emission reductions to stay below 2 degrees.
Yet another issue is the nature of INDCs themselves: should they include mitigation only, or adaptation and climate finance as well? This is a crucial issue for developing countries, who on the whole feel that they should be an all-inclusive package.
NZYD advocates for a fair, ambitious and binding agreement. We encourage the New Zealand Government to advocate for a fully binding agreement in the negotiations for a post-2020 agreement.
Adaptation
Countries disagree on whether new institutions, in addition to those set up under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, should be created for adaptation or not. Many developing countries take the view that new institutional arrangements should be put in place.
Pre-2020 action
Workstream 2 of the ADP will be continuing in Lima. One of its priorities will be to find concrete solutions to close the 2020 emissions gap, which is in the order of 8 to 12 gigatonnes of CO2.
For developing countries, this workstream is essential to confirm that developed countries are serious about reducing their emissions, and to create the climate of trust needed in the talks on the Paris agreement.
The issue of improving finance, technology transfer and capacity-building under workstream 2 will be the subject of debate in Lima, as well as the issue of raising the level of ambition of existing mitigation goals and ensuring that they are implemented.
A new version of the draft text on pre-2020 action was delivered during the most recent ADP session in October 2014, which should serve as a basis for negotiation in Lima.
Climate Finance
This is a serious and ongoing issue. In Copenhagen in 2009, parties pledged to deliver $100 bn per year to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) by 2020. Only $6.9 bn was available to the GCF in December 2013. This figure greatly fuelled the loss of confidence among developed and developing countries. Developing countries and NGOs are already labelling this COP as a “finance COP”, meaning that pressure will be on developed countries to deliver concrete finance in Lima.
NZYD urges the commitment of public finance from developed countries into the Green Climate Fund. Climate finance must be additional to existing climate and development financing, and not shifted from other environmental and development purposes. A broad range of contribution mechanisms is necessary, and these mechanisms must be adequate, sustainable and equitable.

Posted on by Natalie Jones

NZYD Policy Document 2014

NZYD present our policy document on what we think should go into a climate agreement. We have worked hard over the last couple of months (read: researching late into the night and long Skype calls) to produce this document.The policy document has two main purposes:
  1. Encourage us to clarify our position as a group and learn more about specific areas of climate policy, and
  2. Provide a way to communicate our ideas, including to the public and the government.
You can read the policy document to find out more about climate policy, as we have already done the hard work for you! It also gives a clear overview of NZYD’s position.View a copy of the 2014 policy document below. It covers a number of items within climate policy, including:
  • Our guiding principles, including what a fair, binding and ambitious climate deal means to us
  • The Green Climate Fund must meet certain standards such as being additional to existing development and environmental aid
  • Funding to address the impacts of climate change (through the Warsaw mechanism) must not detract from the importance of mitigation and adaptation
  • Loopholes in land use, land use change and forestry policy must be closed
  • The policies behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) need significant changes before NZYD will support them
  • Fossil fuel subsidies should be ended by 2017
  • The gap between NZ’s projected emissions and targets must be closed, and targets should be in line with obligations with developed nations
  • The post-2020 agreement should be fully binding, including targets
Posted on by admin

The big If.

nzydFive days in Lima and all I seem to be asking myself is what if? Today was the first day of the Conference Of Youth (COY), but work started on Tuesday after a massive fourteen hour sleep.

I think the first question I asked myself was, what if my brain explodes from receiving and reading too many emails? As comms manager I’ve been trying to network and build relationships for a decent amount of time now, but upon arrival it has been taken to another level. The people I have been in contact with already (prepare for name dropping) include Helen Clark, Andrew Teem Advisor to the president – Republic of Kiribati,and Joseph Robertson from the Citizens Climate Lobby. Needless to say this gets me wildly excited, watch this space for how the meetings go!

Besides communication prep, we have finalised our policy document, to be published soon, and tried to familiarise ourselves with the city. My version of this has been testing my broken Spanish on locals, walks around the beautiful Mira Flores and paragliding, that ended with an emergency landing on the beach. I’m falling in love with the relaxed Peruvian culture already.

I’m still working on the early mornings, so COY began with a skipped shower and breakfast in the taxi for me. It didn’t bother me much though because I was too excited about the unknown I was facing and the hectic taxi ride only added to the suspense.

What if COY isn’t a source of motivation for me?

There were mixed emotions from the team surrounding what they expected and how the first day measured up in reality. I often have very little expectations for life events and so found the whole thing really interesting. One thing I couldn’t believe was the lack of European delegates attending. Obviously the attendance is primarily South American, but there were people from India, Taiwan, Japan, Belgium, Finland, Australia, USA, UK, Italy, France and I’m sure many more. However I had been told European countries generally brought large delegations, but there was only one or two from each. The buzz of being in such a multicultural auditorium though was enough to tell me that I was where I’m meant to be.

What if I can’t understand anything?IMG_7537

One of the best parts of today for me was getting to experience a translator talking in to my ear during a speech made by Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. As fun as I found it, I’m thankful the entire day wasn’t spent in the same way. COY consists of several seminars and workshops everyday that each individual chooses to attend themself. I decided on oceans this morning, a micro hydro sustainable energy workshop and YOUNGO meeting in the afternoon.

One thing that I was a little surprised at was the disagreement amongst youth at the YOUNGO meeting in the afternoon. YOUNGO is an international youth movement with constituency status, basically the most powerful youth group at COP. Before our workshops could even begin there was a dispute between the official meeting and the working groups who are trying to pass a youth declaration to submit at COP. I’m still in two minds over whether it disappointed me or excited me. It was good to see youth speaking their minds, but at the same time sad that we were disagreeing right from the get go. I think I came with a naive preconception that youth across the world have the exact same ideals and share the same motives for fighting climate change, when in reality that isn’t the case at all.

IMG_7509

What if we don’t all agree?

I guess from today my biggest learning curve was that we’re all here for different reasons. That was really apparent to me sitting in a seminar talking about North Atlantic Ocean currents, something I have very little interest in, as opposed to the American to the left of me who looked as if he might burst from his chair with excitement. I perhaps didn’t give enough thought to how many avenues there are to take in the Climate Change fight, however the underpinning feeling that no matter our reason, we’re all working for climate justice overcame differences at the end of the day.

That’s something I love about being young. Before we grow up and become too set or comfortable in our ways, we’re prepared to listen, adapt and consider other opinions and values and move forward together. We’re generally prepared to have our own ideas critiqued and change them based on new information or world views.

If anything, I’ve grown even more excited for COP to start. Nothing gets me going more than the thought of experiencing new things, voicing my opinion and meeting Helen Clark.

Posted on by Maddie Little

IPCC Synthesis Report – Why Should We Care?

By breakfast tomorrow morning (NZ time), the IPCC will have released the final Synthesis Report of their Fifth Assessment on climate change. It will tie together the findings of three reports released over the last 13 months, covering the physical science of climate change (Working Group 1), vulnerability to climate impacts and adaptation (Working Group 2), and mitigation strategies to tackle climate change (Working Group 3). Having had time to mull over these earlier reports, we have a good idea of what the Synthesis Report might contain, so what makes this important?

 

Firstly we must acknowledge the scientific feat that this report represents: it pulls together five years of work by 830 authors, 1200 other contributors, draws on more than 30,000 pieces of research, and 3700 expert reviewers. That’s pretty damn epic.

 

Another unique feature of this report is the level of expectation surrounding it. In a month’s time, ministers from around the world will come together in Lima to agree to a draft text for the next global climate change agreement (to be settled in 2015 in Paris). The Fifth IPCC Synthesis Report will be the go-to text for policy makers seeking the science to inform and justify their policy positions going into these talks.

 

What makes the synthesis report even more interesting though is that it is released at the end of a week-long IPCC meeting in Copenhagen where government delegates have their last say on the contents of the report. While delegates cannot amend earlier findings and conclusions, they can ask for certain conclusions to be inserted into or eliminated from the draft Synthesis Report, shaping the way the findings will be communicated to the world.

 

So what will it tell us? Based on the previous three reports, and a leaked copy of the draft, here’s what we’re expecting…

  • unequivocal evidence of climate change in every part of the world (each of the last three decades has been successively warmer than any preceding decade since 1850)
  • greater than 95% likelihood that human agency is the dominant cause
  • if greenhouse gas emissions continue rising at current rates, average projected global temperature increase of 2.6-4.8C by the end of the century, and at least half a metre sea level rise
  • progressively greater risk of damaging and irreversible impacts as emissions continue
  • projected impacts on crop yields, water availability, coastal flooding, disease, extreme weather, species extinctions…
  • capacity for us to adapt will get progressively more difficult
  • the internationally agreed 2C target is within reach if governments act together
  • costs of combatting climate change will continue rising with ongoing delay.

What are the contentious bits?

Developing countries have a bone to pick around how these impacts should be addressed, given a disparity in historical contribution to the problem and uneven distribution of the impacts. “We are not all facing the same situation,” according to Sanjay Vashist of the Climate Action Network. “The IPCC has already predicted above 2 degrees C for South Asia, that means the disasters will be more threatening compared to other regions.”

Another sticking point may be the concept of a “carbon budget” included in this year’s reports. The IPCC worked out the amount of greenhouse gases that the world could emit stay within the 2 degrees target, finding that two-thirds of that budget had been used up by 2011, and that at current rates we’ll use the rest up in about 25 years. The inclusion of the carbon budget in the Synthesis Report has faced considerable opposition from political representatives from a number of countries, including India and the USA. India sees coal consumption as a key element of development and is in opposition to any potential restriction to this.

The inclusion or omission of the carbon budget in the Synthesis Report speaks to a broader question about how the IPCC will address the underlying truth that we simply need to stop extracting and burning fossil fuels. Essentially, unless our emissions peak within a decade or so and begin swiftly declining towards zero, staying within 2C is very unlikely, with pretty scary implications for the future.

Given the track record of UN meetings, where hours are devoted to negotiating market mechanisms such as carbon trading and carbon off-setting schemes, the need to bring an end to fossil fuel use (full stop) is a blunt reality, but one that I believe it is crucial for the IPCC to convey.

Whether the report speaks to this urgent and unavoidable need, or tip toes about the issue, could fundamentally impact the way the UN meetings unfold over the next twelve months. I hope they have the courage to stand by their conclusions and convey the urgency in no uncertain terms. Let’s see what the morning will bring us.

 

Written by Tarsh Turner

 

Posted on by Tarsh Turner

The good and bad of the Bonn proposal

Parties met this week in Bonn, Germany ahead of the Lima
conference, where a proposal put forward by New Zealand has been in
the spotlight.

What’s the proposal?

New Zealand proposes that countries each table a nationally determined
mitigation contribution, formalised in a national schedule. The
mitigation commitments will not be legally binding. The idea is that
ambition of mitigation commitments will be increased over time from
the beginning of the agreement until its purpose is achieved, subject
to force majeure.

Countries will have to provide information on measures that will
assist in the implementation of nationally determined mitigation
commitments, and report on progress towards achievement of the
commitment according to transparency arrangements agreed among the
Parties. There will be a common transparency framework applicable to
all parties.

The main argument for non-legally binding targets is that without the
fear of being held to international law, governments are more likely
to shoot for an ambitious emissions target. In addition, it is more
likely that countries such as the US will be able to ratify the
agreement if the targets are non binding.

Criticism

The proposal is not immune from criticism, however. Equity is a
sticking point in the talks, and groups such as the LDC insist that
developed countries must do more than developing nations, due to
historic responsibility. In particular, the notion of common but
differentiated responsibility, perhaps the most debated phrase in the
entire UNFCCC, can be interpreted to suggest that developed countries
and developing countries should be held to differing standards.
However, New Zealand argues that fairness is built into the structure
of the proposal because wealthy countries will necessarily take on
greater ambition than emerging and developing nations, even though all
will be held to the same standards.

Non-binding targets also raise concerns about lack of
accountability.The lack of any legal recourse could lead to a weak
agreement that will not deliver the required levels of emissions cuts.

This plan is backed by the US, but many developing countries are
advocating for an agreement in which only developed nations are
legally obligated to cut emissions. It remains to be seen how well it
will hold up to the level of scrutiny it is likely to receive in Bonn,
and, most likely, Lima.

Posted on by admin

New York, Bonn and on to Lima

On Tuesday 23rd September an emergency UN climate summit was held in New York, called by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. 125 world leaders attended – more than have ever assembled before. The hope was that if leaders could come together in the spirit of cooperation outside of the high pressure environment of the COP meetings, we may finally see some progress towards achieving a global agreement in Paris next year. There were glimpses of progress at the summit, such as China signalling it’s intention to peak emissions as soon as possible, but the danger is that much of it may prove to be hot air and empty rhetoric.

Meanwhile people around the world are taking to the streets. On Sunday 21st September a People’s Climate March united hundreds of thousands of people in 188 countries, with over 300, 000 marching in NYC alone. On Tuesday thousands more flooded Wall Street. The scale and global coordination of this movement was unprecedented. Their message was clear: it is time to stop talking and start taking action. We have watched governments negotiate for over twenty years, while emissions have continued to rise. We no longer have the luxury of time on our side; our window for action is closing. Several speeches at the UN summit, including that of Barack Obama, mentionedSunday’s climate march. “Our citizens keep marching. We cannot pretend we do not hear them,” the president said.

Yet there were still few commitments seen at the summit, despite the congratulatory tone of the meeting. It seemed as if the representatives were happy enough with the turnout, rather than what was actually achieved as an outcome of the gathering. Real action on climate appeard to be left to business, cities and campaign groups

One person present who noticed the lack of commitment was the widow of Nelson Mandela, saying world leaders had failed to rise to the challenge of climate change. “There is a huge mismatch between the magnitude of the challenge and the response we heard here today,” Graça Machel told the closing moments of the summit. “The scale is much more than we have achieved.” Although it is good to see someone with a clear hear head, this won’t make much of a difference if leaders don’t react to Machel’s criticisms.

A six-day forum in Germany is currently underway. It must lay the foundations for the annual round of ministerial-level UN talks to be held in Lima [Peru] in December, Christiana Figueres told delegates as the meeting opened. “Today, dear delegates, the world’s eyes turn to you. It is up to you to chart the path of that solution.”

Negotiators face a difficult challenge of settling long-standing differences of opinion over how to share responsibility for curbing Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions. The aim is to limit global warming to 2C above pre-Industrial Revolution levels, and save the planet from potentially catastrophic climate damage. The major question is whether the new agreement be an all inclusive international treaty, a loose voluntary pact or something in between. This question gets to the thorny issue of fairness, which has been a common theme at negotiations between rich and poor nations for decades.

As Figueres stressed, the new climate pact, due to enter into force in 2020, “must irreversibly bend the curb of emissions”, which have continued to rise. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that based on current trends, the planet could be up to 4.8C warmer by 2100 and sea levels up to 82 centimetres (32 inches) higher.

So where does New Zealand fit in to all of this?

“A representative from New Zealand did not speak summit in September due to issues arising from the recent election”, according to a Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson. However Minister of Foreign Affairs Hon. Murray McCully did participate in the summit and New Zealand’s Climate Change Ambassador Jo Tyndall gave an address on behalf of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, highlighting the work of the Alliance.

In the recent past New Zealand has started to lean towards the thinking of the U.S.A, believing that developing countries such as China and India would have to agree to be held to the same legal standards in the next agreement. This suggests we would be looking to an international agreement, rather than a legally binding one solely for developed countries, much like the Kyoto Protocol.

A recent proposal issued by the New Zealand Government - “Submission to the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action Work Stream” - calls for countries to set domestic emissions targets of their choosing, then face legal obligations to give the United Nations a schedule for when those cuts will happen and to submit to binding review measures. The big numbers, though, the tonnes of climate pollution each nation will slash, would not be internationally legally binding. It seems to be another of those ‘get out of jail free’ cards for NZ. As Michael Dorsey, interim director of the energy and environment programme at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington, D. C. says, “when countries are given a pass — and a pass is voluntarism — without being forced to sign on the dotted line on a legally binding agreement, more often than not, countries don’t deliver on those commitments.”

For a delegate travelling to the negotiations this year, I hope to see something stronger from New Zealand, as this proposal would not achieve the 2 degree target. We need greater pressure from the New Zealand public, especially youth, on the government to put our futures first. Our own climate march drew 300 protesters to Queen Street in Auckland, a good number, but I think our voice could be much stronger.

If you’re keen to learn more about the Bonn conference, click here: http://youthdelegation.org.nz/2014/10/28/2508/

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/20/lima-climate-talks-un-climate-chief-paris

http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2014/09/26/climate-change-centre-stage-at-un-summit/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/23/un-climate-change-summit-partial-results-speeches-obama

 

 

Posted on by Maddie Little