Insight

Buildings and Construction: A sleeping giant for climate action

Today, the construction and operation of buildings is responsible for 40% of all energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Energy demand from this sector is expected to grow by another 50% by 2050.

January 28, 2020

This article originally appeared on IISD's SDG Knowledge Hub.

In the building sector, all trends are pointing upwards, with dramatic consequences for the climate. By 2060, the global building floor area is expected to double. Emerging and developing economies in warm and tropical climates will experience the biggest increase.

Already today, the construction and operation of buildings is responsible for 40% of all energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The sector consumes over a third of global final energy. Energy demand from the building sector is expected to grow by another 50% by 2050. Space cooling is a key driver of this demand – energy needs for space cooling are expected to triple.

Buildings cause greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both when they are built, and over their long lifetime of 30 to 80 years. Our modern way of constructing is mostly based on concrete, using standard blueprints regardless of the climate. This leads to high energy bills for those who can afford it, and economic and health risks for those who cannot.

Future-proofing Buildings Can Drive SDGs 1, 7, 11

Energy-efficient buildings are not rocket science. Improvements in the building’s outer structure and appliances can achieve substantial energy savings compared to standard buildings. Measures to future-proof buildings can range from “low-tech,” such as painting roofs in light colors and ensuring natural shade, to digital solutions for building design and management. Additional macro-economic benefits include energy security, job creation and health. And from a business perspective future proofed buildings have a lower lifetime cost and higher asset values.

Diagram of a residential building showing various eco-friendly features

Climate action in buildings and construction is among the most cost-effective measures. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that realizing the potential of sustainable buildings will save USD 1.1 trillion by 2050

Nevertheless, this transition requires a shift in investment. USD 4.5 trillion are invested into real estate every year. To channel this investment towards energy efficiency, we need to influence it from two directions: ambitious policy and regulation serving as a “stick,” and financing as a “carrot.”

The Programme for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (PEEB), a French-German initiative, works with its first five partner countries – Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Tunisia and Vietnam – to transform the building sector. PEEB combines financing energy efficiency in large-scale projects with technical assistance through policy advice. PEEB mobilizes innovative financing solutions for large building projects. For example, in Morocco PEEB supports the government in mobilising EUR 20 million in climate financing for a residential housing programme. A green loan programme for young families is in the making in Vietnam. The programme also works with partners to make policies and standards more ambitious and effective, through better enforcement of existing green building codes or setting standards for sectors like hotels or hospitals.

All of these advancements are helping to achieve 2030 Agenda targets on energy, housing and poverty.

Climate Action in the Building Sector is Gaining Momentum

Another international agreement – the Paris Agreement on climate change – also hangs in the balance; its goals will not be achieved without a climate focus for buildings in the new decade. A rapid decarbonization needs to happen in the building sector, driven by international and national actors.

In 2019, action on buildings took center stage. Led by the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction (GlobalABC), buildings featured prominently at the climate change conference COP25 in Madrid, with topics ranging from zero carbon buildings to circular economy approaches in the buildings sector. The Global Status Report on Buildings and Construction confirmed the urgent need for action in the building sector. At the Climate Action Summit convened by the United Nations in September 2019, the Net Zero Carbon initiative was launched to leverage the leadership of governments, industry and civil society to commit to ambitious targets and mobilize funding. The Cool Coalition and SEforALL’s Cooling for All initiative have incorporated buildings as a key element of their strategies. 

As we head into 2020, buildings are high on the agenda. The World Economic Forum has named moving towards zero carbon buildings as one of its four top priorities for tackling climate change. The report by the UK government on energy transitions features buildings as a key sector. The lead-up to the Glasgow Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC COP 26) in 2020 has an unprecedented opportunity to raise the ambition of all actors to make our buildings future-proof and wake this sleeping giant.

The author of this guest article, Christiana Hageneder, is the Head of Secretariat, Programme for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (PEEB).

Insight

Enhancing Biodiversity in a Changing Climate | A PRAC webinar

This webinar, hosted by the Prairies Regional Adaptation Collaborative (PRAC), focused on how climate change could impact the biodiversity of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

January 24, 2020

This webinar, hosted by the Prairies Regional Adaptation Collaborative (PRAC), focused on how climate change could impact the biodiversity of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and how conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services can build climate resilience.

More information about this webinar can be found here.

ABOUT THE PRAIRIES REGIONAL ADAPTATION COLLABORATIVE

The PRAC is an initiative aimed at helping decision-makers in the Prairie provinces target local climate change issues and help integrate climate change adaptation considerations into decision making in policy, planning and operations. It is a federal–provincial cost-shared program between Natural Resources Canada and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) acts as the secretariat for PRAC.

Insight

Deep Dive Into Fisheries Subsidies, Part 2: Cheap gas and free nets causing problems for shrimp

Stories of success in Latin American fishing communities have nothing to do with the price of gas or getting cheap equipment. Instead, there must be a system that protects their business from illegal fishing.

January 20, 2020

Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are currently negotiating an agreement on fisheries subsidies that will determine the future of our oceans. The need to reach this multilateral deal is embodied in Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, which calls for the prohibition of harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing. In this three-part series, IISD looks at the impact of fisheries subsidies on the day-to-day lives of people living in different regions across the globe.

Last month we spoke with Dyhia Belhabib about Senegal and how a small fish can have a big impact on the local population. Today, we look at the Pacific coast of Latin America with Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor, a researcher and author of a new paper on this subject, who tells us how the WTO agreement will impact the everyday lives of shrimp fishers in this region.

How important are shrimp to the economy in Latin America?

Shrimps are fished almost everywhere in this region, including Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Peru and represent some of the most valuable fisheries. In countries such as Nicaragua, Mexico and Honduras, for example, shrimp fisheries can make up over 20 per cent of the value of all fisheries on the Pacific coast.

Are shrimp stocks already facing overfishing in this region?

Almost every country in the region shows an all-too-familiar trend of overfishing of  shrimp stocks: It starts with a rapidly expanding catch of one species, then new species start appearing in the catch as the original species declines, and finally the catch declines altogether. Out of 27 shrimp stocks assessed in the six countries of focus of our recent study (Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama and Ecuador), 15 are officially determined to be overexploited and seven maximally exploited.

But this problem does not only affect shrimp fisheries themselves. Shrimp are most often caught using bottom trawls, which are nets that rake across the ocean floor. Roughly 80 per cent of all catch on shrimp vessels are species other than shrimp; about 70 per cent of this bycatch is discarded at sea. This is obviously wasteful and worrying for marine species and ecosystems, but it also impacts artisanal fisheries that could have caught some of these fish for local consumption and to supply seafood markets.

Are fisheries subsidies the reason this happens?

Subsidies can be big contributors to overcapacity because they generate more fishing power than is actually needed to run a sustainable fishery—and subsidies that increase capacity, such as those to help cover fuel costs, are the most common in Latin America. For industrial vessels in Mexico and Nicaragua, subsidies can represent up to 50 per cent of their income.

Removing subsidies will transform the fishing industry. should coastal communities be worried about their jobs?

It’s important to understand that the way the funding is being granted now isn’t supportive for fishing communities. It’s harmful. About 78 per cent of total fisheries subsidies in Latin America are granted to industrial fleets. This contributes to power imbalances and disadvantages artisanal fisheries, which generate the vast majority of employment across the region.

Stories of success in Latin American fishing communities have nothing to do with the price of gas or getting cheap equipment. Instead, there must be a system that protects their business from illegal fishing and integrates their local expertise into management plans.

Local fishermen know perfectly well that cheaper gasoline and free nets won’t solve their problems in the long term. In fact, stories of success in Latin American fishing communities have nothing to do with the price of gas or getting cheap equipment. Instead, there must be a system that protects their business from illegal fishing and integrates their local expertise into management plans.

Are there signs of the region’s fisheries moving in a more sustainable direction?

There are clear precedents of Latin American countries taking measures to address the effects of harmful fisheries subsidies and better manage shrimp fishing. But much remains to be done.

Every country in Latin America has existing regulations in their national legislation that, if implemented, would allow them to improve the management of their fisheries and see greater benefits to local economies and fishing communities. The system is already in place—it just needs funding. But right now the money is often being directed to subsidies that not only don’t work but are actively harmful. This is why effective subsidy disciplines at the WTO could be so useful.

Is the WTO currently on the right track to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies?

This topic has been on the agenda for the last two decades. We have more than enough information to reach a meaningful decision. WTO negotiators have been empowered by a strong mandate and tasked to reach a solution to a clear global problem. None of the Sustainable Development Goals’ targets are as within reach as this one. The new extended deadline is June 2020; hopefully, this will mark the date when this target is achieved.

 

Insight

How Costa Rica’s Environment Minister Talks to his Daughter About Climate Change

Do we need new, advanced technology to reduce carbon emissions? Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, says we already have the best “machine” for the job: Trees.

January 20, 2020

Do we need new, advanced technology to reduce carbon emissions? Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, Costa Rica’s Minister of Environment and Energy, says we already have the best “machine” for the job.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils in Dubai, Rodríguez described a conversation with his daughter about climate change – and how he told her nature has already given us one of the most important tools to tackle the crisis.

“One day I was having dinner with my kids in my house and my younger daughter said, ‘Dad, don’t worry about climate change. One day, a scientist will design a machine that can absorb all of that carbon that is in the atmosphere and we will be safe from climate change’,” he said in an interview.

“And I said to my daughter, ‘You know what? Nature invented that machine many, many millions of years ago. That machine,” he said, “is called a tree.”

Rodríguez continued, “So, if we stop tropical deforestation, or deforestation at the global level, we will use effectively that machine. That was the sign by nature probably 300 million years ago.”

Around the world, we’re losing 18.7 million acres of forest each year – or 27 soccer fields per minute. Deforestation not only causes a loss of natural habits and biodiversity, but also contributes to emissions as there are fewer trees to suck up the carbon. According to Global Forest Watch, if “tropical deforestation” were a country, it would rank #3 in carbon-equivalent emissions, behind China and the United States.

But Costa Rica shows us it’s possible to undo some of the damage.

Mama sloth with baby sloth hanging together from a tree branch in their natural environment
These sloths agree that major policy amendments are needed to protect forests. Photo by Ken Canning.

In the 1940s, 75% of Costa Rica was covered by forest, primarily tropical rainforest. By 1983, following decades of deforestation, this dropped to 26%.

With major policy changes such as restricting logging permits, paying landowners who conserve their land, and attracting overseas investment in eco-tourism, Costa Rica has reversed the trend. Rodríguez explained that it has now doubled its forest cover, which covers more than half of the country and continues to grow as the government creates more national parks to preserve natural ecosystems, from highlands and cloud cover to mangroves and rainforests.

“Costa Rica has been very successful at understanding how we value nature and how we use nature as a driver for economic growth, particularly with eco-tourism,” he said.

And by tying the need to preserve biodiversity to the economy, Costa Rica has gotten citizens involved: “If nature becomes a driver for growth and the economy, economic development, people won't want to destroy nature. So, in a matter of a generation – over one generation – we went from people destroying the forest to produce food, particularly livestock, to protecting nature, restoring nature and using it as a way to bring tourists to the farms and the parks. And that has been tremendously successful.”

Costa Rica’s not stopping there. The country has committed to be fully decarbonized by 2050 and will present a national climate action plan to UN Climate Change by 2020. The plan will include measures for transportation, infrastructure, energy, agriculture, waste management and forest management – including increasing forest cover to 60% by 2030.

Rodríguez thinks they can get there.

“I'm a rational optimistic because I know we've got the resources. It is not lack of financial resources. And we've got the technology. We know what we need to do.”

And what we need to do, as he told his daughter, is protect and grow nature's most precious carbon-fighting machines: trees.

 

This article originally appeared on the World Economic Forum website; it has been reprinted with permission.

 

Insight details

Region
Latin America
Insight

Is Climate Art the Right-Brained Approach We Need to This Crisis?

A new wave of climate art comes with a strong message for audiences who might not be reached by traditional media or the scientific community.

December 19, 2019
Climate art: Photo of a beam of light on a stone house at night in Scotland
Lines (57° 59′ N, 7° 16’W) by artists Pekka Niittyvirta and Timo Aho. Photo reprinted with permission.

For creative types, watching the climate crisis unfold is a bit like sitting on the Titanic as it plunges into the ocean and realizing you don’t have an underwater welding degree or even, for that matter, a life vest. When you barely grasp the data in an IPCC report, but your heart drops at footage of melting Arctic glaciers, it’s easy to feel like the “soft skills” you’ve been perfecting for years have been a complete waste of time.

The artistic community is, however, finding its voice in the climate movement and creating work that comes with a strong message for audiences who might not otherwise be reached by traditional media or the scientific community.

It might be life-sized cars made of sand creating a traffic jam on the beach at Art Basel Miami, or lines of light showing projected sea-level rise, or even a totem pole made from golf bags; whatever the medium, this new wave of climate-inspired artists has the power to prompt others to think about the crisis in a new way, perhaps even inspiring them to make changes in their own lives.

Melting ice sculpture of the words "How Dare You" by Rubem Robiard, example of climate art
How Dare You, a melting ice sculpture by artist Rubem Robiard. Photo reprinted with permission.

Justin Wu is one of these artists. The photographer from Toronto, Canada, has become known in recent years for his dark, moody portraits of dancers, actors and other performers. But as he began to pay more attention to environmental issues, he felt compelled to use his talent for a greater good. He connected with Todd Krim, who specializes in pairing Hollywood celebrities with charitable causes, and together they came up with the concept for #WorldIsInOurHands, a social media campaign run in partnership with UN Environment and its #ActNow initiative, which aims to inspire average citizens to fight climate change through simple, individual actions.

Wu’s celebrity portraits, shot in black and white with each subject cradling a crystal globe, form the aesthetic basis of this campaign. His more than 53,000 followers on Instagram have given it plenty of support, as have the actors themselves, including Susan Sarandon, Antonio Banderas and Rainn Wilson. Within the first two days of its debut, it garnered more than a million views, making it UN Environment’s fastest-growing campaign launch. Since then, #WorldIsInOurHands has seen more than 1.6 million engagements, reaching potentially more than 30 million people as momentum continues to build.

Actor Joaquin Phoenix holding a crystal globe
Actor Joaquin Phoenix for the #WorldIsInOurHands campaign. Photo by Justin Wu.

“What blows me away the most,” said Wu over the phone, “isn’t just that these people I’ve idolized are joining this, but actually the public’s response—the discussion in the comments is so positive and inspiring. People from all over the world are really taking the message to heart, and that’s what makes it all worthwhile.”

Even without celebrity connections and Instagram followers, it’s still possible to create art with an environmental message and see it resonate with a global audience. Sarah Lazarovic is an illustrator who writes a newsletter called Minimum Viable Planet. As she was trying to curb her fast fashion addiction, she found it useful to draw a pyramid chart to guide her clothing purchases. She called it the “Buyerarchy of Needs” and shared it on Facebook. Suddenly it started popping up on blogs, in magazines, in university lectures and across social media, often in different languages.

Buyerarchy of Needs pyramid
Lazarovic's Buyerarchy of Needs illustration, reprinted with permission.

Lazarovic has said it’s hard to know whether it definitively inspired anyone to buy less stuff, but even if the Buyerarchy only served to make some people think about their consumption habits for a moment, she's happy. In fact, the artist continues to create new work as a means of processing her own thoughts and reactions to climate change, regardless of whether anyone sees it.

As Daniel Morchain reflected in his blog post here a few months ago, the path to a safe climate is not only built by research reports and policy amendments—it’s also dependent on less tangible and perhaps more right-brained factors. Navigating the effects of global warming and coming to terms with the drastic measures required to move forward in a truly sustainable way will be emotional and, to put it mildly, a bit messy.

Dark image of lake and trees with beam of green light
Pinhole camera photo of the Experimental Lakes Area by Lesley Nakonechny.

So what better way to process messy sentiments than with art? Regardless of whether it reaches the masses or inspires a global revolution, there is value in creating art for art’s sake. If taking underwater pinhole photos (as Lesley Nakonechny did recently through the Artist-in-Residence program at IISD’s Experimental Lakes Area) leads to learning something new about freshwater biodiversity, that’s important. The same goes for drawing a pair of fast-fashion shoes instead of buying them to help satisfy consumerist cravings or even writing poetry about the climate to serve as a lyrical reminder of what is at stake. In fact, a climate-themed screenwriting contest happening now encourages precisely this.

As Norwegian artist Thale Fastvold observed quite astutely, “Science has a communication problem that art can solve.” But climate-responsive art has more benefits than simply solving for a communications issue—it can offer new perspectives on old problems, bring otherwise disparate audiences together, and foster accountability and collective agency. And, even if it’s only experienced by one person, it has the power to inspire both dialogue and action.

Vanessa Farquharson is IISD’s communications manager. She processed her feelings about climate change a few years ago by making 366 green changes to her life and writing about it.

 
Insight

A Long and Winding Road: COP 25 end notes

Now that COP 25 has wrapped, it’s worth looking back at what was—and wasn’t—achieved.

December 17, 2019

If there is one word to sum up what turned out to be the longest Conference of Parties (COP) in UNFCCC history, it’s arguably “frustration.”

COP 25 nearly didn’t happen at all, on account of mass protests in Santiago, Chile, the planned host city; at the last minute, it moved to Madrid, Spain, forcing some who were planning to attend to instead watch from afar. Once they got rolling, the negotiations didn’t land where they needed to, with countries kicking the can down the road instead of agreeing on essential mechanisms to move forward.

Those delegates who did manage to rearrange their travel and accommodation—including 16-year-old activist Greta Thunberg, who made a lengthy detour across the Atlantic Ocean by hitching a ride on a sailboat with a few kind strangers—arrived with lofty goals, understanding that this was the final round of international negotiations before the Paris Agreement holds governments across the globe accountable to their climate commitments as of 2020.

IISD made it to Madrid in one piece. Our Energy and Resilience teams organized and took part in a long list of events, launched new research and toolkits, and even concluded a presentation with a climate rap (we’re still looking for the footage); meanwhile, our Earth Negotiations Bulletin team provided unbiased coverage of the negotiations and side events through their daily reports and analyses, photos, videos and Halfway-Point Webinar (which saw more than 1,000 registrations).

Now that COP 25 has finally wrapped, having stretched two days past its scheduled end date, it’s worth looking back at what was—and wasn’t—achieved. We asked our experts to share their takeaways, including both the highs and lows. The remarks here come from Anne Hammill, director of IISD’s Resilience Program; Jennifer Allan, a team leader with our Earth Negotiations Bulletin; Laura Merrill, Manager of the Global Subsidies Initiative; and Peter Wooders, senior director of IISD's Energy Program, all of whom have been to many, many COPs.
 

UNFCCC COP 25 delegate reaction (Photo by IISD ENB Kiara Worth)
Delegates regard draft text on the final day of COP 25 in Madrid. (Photo IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth)

What happened at COP 25 that left you optimistic about the future?

Jennifer Allan: Half a million people marched in Madrid to demand climate action. Because the Paris Agreement relocates responsibility for climate ambition to the national level (countries choose their policies and targets), there is little room for the intergovernmental process to spur action. While the UNFCCC, and particularly this COP, may prove unable to address the climate emergency, the power of people mobilizing around the world in this way can potentially pressure governments to do more at home.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the non-result on Article 6 market mechanisms may be a good thing. Countries that held the line on environmental integrity welcomed no deal as better than a bad deal. There was a concern that the mechanisms could allow countries to count credits created under the Kyoto Protocol toward their Paris Agreement pledges, alongside worries of “double counting” (where the country buying the credit and the country selling the credit would both claim the emissions reduction). Such design flaws would have undermined the ability of Article 6 to spur overall emission reductions.

Anne Hammill: The strong support we received for our work on gender left me optimistic. The approval of a new five-year Gender Action Plan (GAP) by the UNFCCC was one of the few shining lights at this year’s COP—and it’s a plan that aligns with priorities we have been advancing at IISD, especially in terms of ensuring that climate action is gender-responsive. The NAP Global Network hosted a lively debate around whether increasing women's participation in decision making was the key to unlocking gender-responsive adaptation—it got heated! We also co-organized a session at Development & Climate Days to interrogate what, exactly, is meant by the term “gender-responsive climate finance,” as we feel there’s much more to it than what’s normally discussed. We had a huge turnout to launch a toolkit we developed on gender-responsive National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), in collaboration with the UNFCCC’s Least Developed Countries Expert Group and the Adaptation Committee. And this was the first year IISD was at a COP as a member of the Women and Gender Constituency, which has strengthened our connections with organizations advocating for gender equality and women’s rights in climate action and will enrich the work we do moving forward.

"The approval of a new five-year Gender Action Plan (GAP) by the UNFCCC was one of the few shining lights at this year’s COP"—Anne Hammill, Director, Resilience

Overall, I walked away from COP feeling a sense of resolve to charge ahead; despite the lack of overall progress we saw in the climate negotiations, the new GAP—and our work to support its implementation—reflects a commitment we’ve been seeing among partners, such as Jamaica, Kiribati, and Madagascar, to get things done on the ground.

Peter Wooders: On the Energy front, there's a lot to be optimistic about. There was an increasing number of net-zero and similar commitments made by countries, which is key to climate leadership. It was refreshing to hear Danish Climate Change, Energy & Utilities Minister Dan Jørgensen state on several occasions that he did not know how Denmark would meet its 70 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 commitment, but that this wasn’t a weakness—they would find a way. Then there was a huge focus on the just transition away from fossil fuels and into clean energy (renewables and energy efficiency). The debates and discussions at the German Pavilion and elsewhere showed just how sophisticated the understanding of countries was in terms of how to proceed.

It was also great to see a focus now on how building up natural gas infrastructure as coal phases out is no longer the right pathway everywhere—we can jump straight to renewables, with continuing evidence of renewables out-competing coal and natural gas in the markets. The reform of fossil fuel subsidies has become almost a mantra now, repeated everywhere: subsidizing climate change is clearly non-sensical.

Laura Merrill: More organizations and businesses are saying that we need to end subsidies to fossil fuels and shift financing to accelerate renewables and a transition to net-zero-carbon systems. Innovators like Solar Impulse, as well as big intergovernmental organizations like the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Secretary-General and investors, are calling for action, but so are young people from the Middle East and even Michael Bloomberg. People across the globe are starting to understand the kind of massive swap this is going to require.

Global awareness of climate change has grown exponentially - and looked to COP 25 for action.
(Photo IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth)

What happened (or didn't) that has left you feeling concerned or frustrated?

Jennifer Allan: There is much to worry about, including the future legitimacy of the UNFCCC. Questions of whether this body can truly deliver are growing louder and increasingly difficult to ignore. Parties mandated this COP with a limited set of issues to address, and almost all were technical in nature. Even the best outcome on all of these issues—Article 6, loss and damage, and others—would have proven inadequate to raise ambition. Furthermore, that parties could not agree on how to move forward on the issue of common time frames for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) threatens to undermine the cyclical logic of the Paris Agreement and the ambitious “ratchet-up” mechanism.

Even more frustrating is the ongoing lack of trust among parties. Simple issues, like how to set up a registry for countries’ NDCs and adaptation communications (essentially, a website), proved intractable because of legacy debates over principles. Countries blocked issues of deep importance to one another in adversarial negotiation ploys that do not bode well for building the trust necessary to move forward with collective climate action.

"The reform of fossil fuel subsidies has become almost a mantra now, repeated everywhere: subsidizing climate change is clearly non-sensical." —Peter Wooders, Senior Director, Energy

Anne Hammill: The overall lack of progress in the negotiations has me worried that countries are retreating from each other; that, in this moment where the evidence is clear, where voices demanding action are louder than ever, we cannot see a shared path forward. Beyond this, however, is an unsettling feeling that the global headlines are detracting from the very real progress that's actually happening on the ground. Despite the obstacles being faced, by developing countries in particular, in terms of access to finance and other resources, there is a lot happening that we should heed. Recognizing progress does not absolve rich countries from providing more support.

Much of the Resilience Program’s purpose at the COP was to advocate for National Adaptation Planning. It is our firm belief that robust adaptation planning processes—where climate considerations are firmly embedded in development plans and decisions—are the foundation for effective adaptation action. Otherwise, you run the risk of investing in band-aid solutions. Getting these processes in place takes time, as we're talking about systemic change, yet all we heard at COP 25 about NAPs was that progress was far too slow, that not enough was happening. On the one hand, this message certainly underscores the need to scale-up adaptation support. On the other hand, it can cast doubt on the value of current efforts and on the NAP process itself. We can’t let the need to mobilize more resources take away from the hard-won victories. We must recognise and learn from stories of progress, such as those captured in our Stories of Progress in NAP Processes in 2019.

COP25 venue
The venue of COP 25 in Madrid. (Photo IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth)

Peter Wooders: It would be great to see more ambitious NDCs next year, and there is considerable concern that this won’t be the case. My main concern is the lack of urgency. The Production Gap report, which IISD co-authored, shows that existing plans on coal, oil and gas production will take us 50 per cent above the 2°C pathway in 2030 and 120 per cent above the 1.5°C pathway—and the first step when you are in a hole is, of course, to stop digging. Whether we need a strong UNFCCC process to deliver this is perhaps now questionable, but it would certainly help.

Laura Merrill: Actual progress on subsidy reform and correct pricing of fossil fuels this year has been glacial, let alone made mention of in the Paris Agreement. Countries urgently need to share lessons around what works and what doesn’t. Everybody had an opinion at this COP as to why things don’t work when energy prices go up or jobs are threatened. What we need is more understanding of the policy and planning that actually does work to make this transition successful.

 

 

Insight

Way to Go Winnipeggers, on Getting Us Even Closer to Protecting Lake Winnipeg!

Winnipeg is getting even closer to increasing the protection of Lake Winnipeg from harmful algal blooms. And it's thanks to Winnipeggers of all stripes!

December 6, 2019

Winnipeg is getting even closer to increasing the protection of Lake Winnipeg from harmful algal blooms. And it's thanks to Winnipeggers from all walks of life!

This week, the Province of Manitoba announced that it will be setting a clear deadline (February 1, 2020) for the City of Winnipeg to implement an interim phosphorus reduction strategy for its North End Water Pollution Control Centre (NEWPCC) to bring the amount of phosphorus it releases into Lake Winnipeg down to legal limits.

As research at the IISD Experimental Lakes Area has taught us, phosphorus needs to be reduced to limit the spread of those harmful algal blooms that plague Lake Winnipeg every year.

This is exciting news because it means that we are inching ever closer to ensuring that the NEWPCC—the largest known single point source of phosphorus to Lake Winnipeg—has an interim solution to tide itself over while long-term biological solutions to the removal of phosphorus (and other nutrients and contaminants) are in the works. (Those biological solutions are currently slated to be implemented around 2034.)

This is exciting news because it means that the International Institute for Sustainable Development, along with our partners the Lake Winnipeg Foundation, will continue to be part of the process on which we have collaborated and worked for so long, as we take on roles as advisors on the soon-to-be-formed project advisory committee to determine the best interim solution to take forward.

And this is exciting news because this milestone demonstrates the power of collaboration. It is thanks to all the interested citizens and members of the Lake Winnipeg Foundation, prominent members of Winnipeg's business community, governments and municipalities across the province and significant media coverage that has kept the issue alive. 

Congratulations to all the many Winnipeggers who have demonstrated their concern and are anxiously awaiting an efficient and effective interim solution for the NEWPCC’s phosphorus emissions.

Insight

Deep Dive Into Fisheries Subsidies, Part 1: Senegal and the suffering sardinella

Overfishing has reached alarming proportions in West Africa, affecting the local economy, culture and people's daily lives. How can a WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies help?

December 6, 2019

Members of the World Trade Organization are currently negotiating an agreement on fisheries subsidies that will determine the future of our oceans. The need to reach this multilateral deal is embodied in Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, which calls to prohibit harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing. In this three-part series, IISD looks at the impact of fisheries subsidies on the day-to-day lives of people living in different regions across the globe.


We begin in West Africa with questions for Dr. Dyhia Belhabib, a researcher and author of the paper Une exploration des impacts potentiels des règles de l'OMC sur les subventions à la pêche: Le cas de la pêcherie de sardinelles en Afrique de l'Ouest. She explains how the WTO negotiations in Geneva could impact the fishing industry in Senegal, particularly for those working in local fishing communities, many of whom risk their lives every day to catch ever fewer fish.

Just how severe, in your opinion, is the problem of overfishing in West Africa?

Overfishing has reached alarming proportions in this region. At the moment, the majority of the region’s important fish stocks are overexploited. Growing competition between artisanal fishers and foreign vessels has exacerbated the issue.

How does this problem affect average citizens in the coastal communities?

A Senegalese fisher once said to me: “I risk my life for fewer and fewer fish every day.” Over 250 fishers lose their lives every year in West African waters. Fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, yet this doesn’t stop them from going out to sea and doing their job.

Fisheries have always played a pivotal role in the social and economic identity of these coastal communities. It’s an integral part of their lives and their culture. They significantly contribute to the region’s food security and gender-balanced employment.

How does fishing empower women in West Africa?

Traditionally, the fishers themselves have been mostly men, but the processors have almost always been women. In this region, they are perceived as the experts in fish processing—women are often the ones supporting fisheries operations, the entrepreneurs. If fisheries collapse, the whole system, including the gender balance, will collapse.

What kind of fish do they rely on here?

Many fishers in West Africa look for sardinella when they deploy their nets. In Senegal, small pelagic fish like sardinella account for 75 per cent of the population’s fish consumption. Our recent study estimates that in The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal fishing for small pelagic fish, including sardinella, generates nearly 200,000 jobs, so it’s not only of cultural importance, it also has implications for food security and the local economy.

Why is sardinella so popular?

Sardinella is an essential source of animal protein in many West African countries. Most of the people in these regions can’t afford beef, lamb or poultry, so tiny sardinella distributed by local fishers and markets are often the most available choice.

Can sardinella be replaced by other fish?

The problem is that sardinella is at the bottom of the food chain. Forty years ago, the most popular fish in Senegal was thiof (white grouper). When the stocks of thiof collapsed, the sardinella population started growing and replaced thiof. But if sardinella stocks are depleted, there won’t be much else to fish.

How can a WTO agreement on fisheries subsidies help solve this problem?

WTO negotiations to discipline harmful fisheries subsidies constitute an opportunity to help put the region’s fisheries on a more sustainable footing.

Our research on sardinella shows clearly that unchecked fisheries subsidies are one of the key factors that have allowed this situation to develop and allow it to persist. The data presented in the study suggests that most of the fleets active in the sardinella fisheries benefit from subsidies, in particular, to cover the costs of fuel and access to other countries’ waters, and that these subsidies appear to play an important role in their profitability.

In other words, most fishing activities targeting sardinella, whether by artisanal or commercial fleets, may not be economically viable without subsidies?

Correct. So if we phase out the subsidies, while allowing for transition, the unsustainable fishing can be controlled.

What will happen next? How will this affect the industry?

It seems likely that the stocks would start to recover. This would, in the long run, increase catch opportunities and revenues for pirogues and vessels remaining in the local industry, who in turn may no longer need subsidies to be economically sustainable. It is, however, important to design a proper transition strategy to protect the most vulnerable.

How can we be sure that reducing subsidies will benefit local fleets, in particular, small-scale fishers?

There is a risk that this solution could have adverse effects on more vulnerable fishers in the short-term, in particular for the small-scale sector. To address this concern, one useful approach could be to apply a subsidy prohibition first to the industrial fleets, which are overwhelmingly foreign-owned and do not bring development benefits to West African societies the same way the small-scale sector does. Such a transition period could allow small-scale fishers to benefit from improved economic conditions as a result of stocks rebuilding, making subsequent reform of subsidies easier.

Is there anything West African countries can do today to prepare for these potential changes to regulations?

They should start assessing how the necessary reforms could be designed and supported in their countries. It’s a good time for improving the monitoring and surveillance of fishing activities. Finding effective control means will be key, but equally important will be supporting fishers through the transition. Governments should start preparing reforms to reorient public funds toward broader forms of support that promote rural development and strengthen basic public services.

Insight

Should We Have Impact Assessments for Disruptive Technologies?

If we don’t create basic assessment systems to make sure we’re using new technologies to advance carbon-neutrality and sustainability, we put our future at risk.

December 5, 2019

Imagine that you live in a neighbourhood with a public park at its centre. Your community has always used it as an informal gathering space—it’s free, it's always open and everyone is welcome. As an added bonus, the trees and other vegetation provide places for wildlife to live and help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

One day, construction starts in the park, but site workers can’t disclose any details about it. Eventually, when the hoarding surrounding the area is removed, a new waste incinerator is revealed. At the grand opening, the project’s leaders cite multiple benefits for sustainable development. Soon after, trucks start arriving at your doorstep, collecting waste and transporting it to the new facility.

A few neighbours are pleased that this private initiative will lower waste management fees. Some welcome the fact that local roads will be upgraded as a side-benefit of the project. Some speculate that it may eventually create more jobs. Others, however, express concern about the incinerator’s potential emissions, impacts on public health, the value of their properties, and risks of malfunctions and accidents. When you ask a local authority, it becomes clear that the project developer was not required to consider or disclose any potential adverse impacts and risks. This entire initiative is protected by commercial confidentiality.

Does this scenario sound absurd to you? It might. Most of us live in societies that require the developers to first carry out environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and formally consult the potentially affected or concerned public and relevant authorities before going ahead with a project. These processes are in place in all countries globally and support decision-making on proposed actions that may affect the environment, economy or society (see Box 1, below).

Now, what if we swap the waste incinerator in the example above with a new technology project? And what if, instead of being hypothetical, it’s actually happening now, in real life?

Woman wearing virtual reality glasses outside

Disruptive innovation (think ride-sharing apps) and exponential technologies (such as artificial intelligence) are already affecting people in discrete, yet potentially significant ways. There are increasing concerns about data collection, surveillance, behaviour management and the shake-up of local economies as automation takes over. And yet, no comparable impact assessment obligations apply to these types of business initiatives.

Take, for example, ongoing concerns around a proposal in Toronto, Canada, that would see Google's Sidewalk Labs develop a large swath of the city’s waterfront and collect unspecified data on the movements and habits of people inhabiting this space. The persistent media coverage of the project is symptomatic of a broader concern among the general public regarding the impact of the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence on our communities.

Municipalities are starting to be more systematic about asking the right questions before giving the green light on new tech projects: verifying who owns, protects and uses collected data; determining long-term technological lock-ins and dependencies on external service suppliers; and analyzing the life-cycle costs of cyber-physical systems, along with their maintenance needs and vulnerabilities.

But from an environmental and climate change angle, we must also start to inquire more about the electricity demands of technology that is based on machine-driven interactions and transactions that come with significant power demands. We should also be looking at the electronic waste associated with a high proliferation of plug-in appliances and equipment. And we may wish to learn how discrete algorithms and hidden commercial interests built into various digital platforms change our consumption patterns and their sustainability (or lack thereof).

Inevitably, we will find complicated pros and cons with plenty of double-edged swords. For instance, autonomous transport systems—such as self-driven cars—provide on-demand mobility, facilitate vehicle sharing (which reduces the number of cars on the road), and increase energy efficiency per journey through route optimization and improved driving behaviour. On the flip side, they will likely lead to greater demand for road-based transportation, worsen urban sprawl, and require ongoing upgrades in energy supply and infrastructure.

Similarly, additive manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing) may, on the one hand, provide custom-made and highly functional products, reduce the material intensity and weight of traditionally made products, and simplify logistical requirements through decentralized manufacturing, which takes place closer to customers. Yet this type of production may require more energy than conventional manufacturing; it may also potentially ramp-up resource consumption by providing affordable objects that are difficult to fix or even dismantle for waste-recovery purposes.

3D printing machine making a hexagon

Simply put, nearly all next-generation technologies come with benefits and side effects. As Melvin Kranzberg famously stated, “technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral.” Indeed, “technology is a very human activity,” and, as such, its effects depend on the intentions and skills of its users, as well as on the context of its application. Since these impacts may be diverse, the ultimate question is: Who should be responsible for determining and evaluating the inconvenient side-effects of new tech? Should this be the task of society, governments, academia or the business sector?

Right now, concerns about the potential adverse impacts of disruptive technologies seem to be left to the most vocal critics. Developers are not required to properly anticipate their potential risks and side-effects or engage the potentially affected societies in discussions about the economic, social or environmental impacts of their creations.

To use the terminology of environmental regulation, we are currently in a technological “pre-NEPA” phase. We don’t have processes for well-organized public debates about the potentially significant impacts of disruptive technology projects before their deployment. Yet, books like The Second Machine Age,  Homo Deus or Life 3.0 are giving us clear warning signals about the potential side-effects of our growing technological capacities, serving as modern-day parallels to the environmental alarm bells sounded by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring in the 1960s.

We were smart enough 50 years ago to invent the first EIA system. So, considering the forthcoming Fourth Industrial Revolution, do we need IAs for disruptive digital technologies? If not, what would be the alternative? If we don’t create at least basic assessment systems to ensure we’re using next-generation technologies for our benefit and to advance social cohesion, carbon-neutrality and sustainability, we put our future at risk.

Box 1: Impact Assessments (IA)

Formal EIAs for federal actions (at the project and strategic decision-making levels) were first constituted in 1969 through the United States National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) following a decade of growing environmental awareness and a series of disasters such as the Cuyahoga River Fire, which acted as the final wake-up call. Following the passage of NEPA, EIA (focused at the project level) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (focused at the policy-, plan- and program-levels) have become globally widespread and have also inspired other IAs that focus on social repercussions, health effects, biodiversity and other factors. The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) describes these tools as processes for identifying the future consequences of a current or proposed action.

At their core, IAs ensure that proponents of new initiatives with potentially significant societal impacts identify and assess such impacts and risksconsider alternatives and mitigation measures, and make these findings available to relevant authorities and the public for consideration.

The main features of EIA processes are summarized in IISD’s EIA: Essentials. Information on other IA tools can be found in IAIA’s Resources.

Those interested in exploring this issue further are welcome to reach out to the IAIA's emerging technologies team here.

Jiří Dusík is co-chair, IAIA Section on Emerging Technologies, Integra Consulting, Ltd.
Alan Bond is co-chair, IAIA Section on Emerging Technologies, University of East Anglia (UK) and North West University (South Africa)
Barry Sadler is former Chief Executive of IEMA and EIA Adviser to the United Nations Environment Program

Insight details

Insight

What is COP 25? Why is it blue? We have answers

Forget what COP stands for? Not sure what, exactly, happens at these events? We asked Reporting Services expert Dr. Jennifer Allan to give us some answers.

November 23, 2019

Forget what COP stands for? Not sure what, exactly, happens at these events? Can't figure out why it's being called the "Blue COP"? We asked Reporting Services expert Dr. Jennifer Allan, a regular COP participant and host of IISD's upcoming COP 25 halftime show, to give us some straight answers.

What is a COP? What happens at these events, other than lots of talking?

COP stands for “Conference of Parties”; in this case, the parties are coming from around the world, on an annual basis, to meet in person and, yes, talk about stuff. To borrow an analogy, the COP is like a coral reef for the climate community. It’s where (and when) civil society, governments, international organizations, businesses, bankers and many others working on climate policy and science get together to talk about solutions. Some of those talks are negotiations; most of the ones at COP 25 will be aimed at readying countries to implement the Paris Agreement, but there will be other important work being done outside the negotiations, particularly at side events.

Right, got it. Um… remind me, what is the Paris Agreement?

In December 2015, 192 countries committed to a climate change agreement that is dynamic, durable and applicable to all countries. Since then, 181 countries have ratified the agreement, although in 2017 the United States expressed its intention to withdraw from the agreement after a three-year notice period. At the heart of the Paris Agreement is a commitment by countries to submit Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), setting out their national targets for reducing greenhouse gases and, in some cases, plans for adapting to the impacts of climate change and providing finance and other support to developing countries. These pledges are the foundation of the agreement. They are to be resubmitted to the United Nations every five years, and each must be more ambitious than the last.

OK. So how is this different from the UN General Assembly and UN Climate Summit that just happened in New York?

The UN General Assembly and the Climate Summit were about ambition: what countries were pledging to do for the climate. These forums were meant for high-level discussions and aimed at getting high-level buy-in for climate action. The COP is about the actual governance: setting rules, reviewing countries’ reports on their efforts and coordinating the actions of all the bodies working under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Is there anything that makes COP 25 special or different from previous COPs?

This COP can be seen as a stepping stone on the way to the official 2020 start date for the Paris Agreement. There is one major deadline: to finalize the market mechanism and other such “cooperative approaches” for the Paris Agreement. This step is vital to help countries implement the Paris Agreement when it begins next year. The COP is also about increasing momentum for greater climate action. There is widespread understanding that we need to do more to reduce emissions and build resilience, but countries have yet to formalize this understanding into new NDCs. Next year is the deadline for countries to submit new, more ambitious NDCs.

Does this party have a theme? Some are calling it the "Blue COP"—what does that mean?

Blue COP is a way to convey the close links between the health of the climate and the health of the ocean. The recent Special Report on the Ocean and the Cryosphere in a Changing Climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) outlined the impacts of climate change on the ocean and the resulting implications for low-lying areas and coastal communities.

There’s been much talk of Article 6. What is this, and why does it matter?

Article 6 is complicated and has a long history, appearing in various forms in the negotiations since 2011 (at least). It has three parts: internationally transferred mitigation outcomes, a market mechanism and a non-market mechanism. Internationally transferred mitigation outcomes are a mechanism for developed countries to support other countries in reducing emissions, then applying the resulting credits to its own emission reduction targets. The Article 6 negotiations are the last piece of the Paris Agreement rule book. Last year, in Katowice, parties agreed to all the operational elements in the Katowice Climate Package that allow countries to have a common interpretation and implementation of the agreement’s provisions, from reporting to the global stocktake. Article 6 will complete that set of operational rules, readying the agreement for full implementation.

What can we look forward to in your COP 25 Halfway Point Webinar?

The ministers and other high-level officials arrive in the second week. Therefore, the halfway point is a good time to take stock of the progress made and look ahead to what issues will require high-level political guidance. I’ll provide a quick update on what has been agreed (or is nearing agreement) and what work remains for the second week. I’ll try to cover any major announcements made during the first week, particularly new funding announcements. Of course, I’ll be happy to answer your questions!

Lastly, are there good COPs and bad COPs?

Each COP has a particular role in the overall process: some are tasked with delivering major outcomes and others with finalizing details. What is constant is the need to maintain an inclusive, transparent process: all countries need to be involved in order to accept the final outcome. The new test will be how to use the unique forum of a COP to mobilize climate ambition. We may not know if the Chile/Madrid COP was a “good COP” until later in 2020 when we see the extent and ambition of new NDCs.