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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.
 

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.

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.

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.

 

 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

In investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS)—the controversial regime allowing foreign corporations to sue sovereign states on investment-related matters—ironies do occasionally occur. Sometimes they’re bitter. Sometimes they’re carbon-intensive. Sometimes they’re radioactive.

In the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, the German parliament expedited the phase-out of nuclear energy in the country. As a result, Vattenfall—an energy company wholly owned by the Swedish state that, at the time, was operating two of Germany’s oldest nuclear reactors—initiated international investment arbitration against Germany. While the secrecy of proceedings makes it impossible to know details about the case, initiated in 2012 and still pending, the compensation sought by Vattenfall reportedly amounts to EUR 4.7 billion.

Fast forward seven years to November 8, 2019: Australian mining company Aura Energy puts Sweden on notice of an investment dispute because of Sweden’s own anti-nuclear policy. The investor is seeking compensation for alleged financial losses resulting from Sweden’s decision in 2018 to ban uranium mining. Concerns regarding the environmental impacts of uranium exploitation and the risks of radioactive pollution to human health motivated Swedish authorities to enact the ban.

Aura Energy is initially seeking amicable settlement, meaning that Sweden will have a three-month window to sit with the investor and talk money, or perhaps regulatory rollback. If these negotiations are unsuccessful and Aura Energy follows through with its arbitration threat, this could be the first treaty-based investment arbitration case featuring Sweden as the respondent state. So far, there are 10 known cases involving Swedish investment treaties; in all of them, Sweden is the investor’s home state.

The Netherlands is also on the brink of a debut as an ISDS respondent. In September 2019, German company Uniper threatened arbitration against the Dutch government if it proceeds with its ban on coal-based power generation by 2030—a measure adopted in the context of Dutch efforts to become carbon-neutral, in line with its policies for climate action.

It’s worth noting that while Uniper could be the first ISDS case against the Netherlands, there are 110 cases involving investors who claim to be based in the Netherlands—which often means having no more than a mailbox there.

An outdated investment protection treaty is at the root of the problem

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is the legal basis invoked by the investors in all of those three disputes against Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. The stated goal of the 1994 treaty is to create a multilateral framework for cooperation in the energy sector. The text includes investment protection provisions and an ISDS mechanism similar to those found in old-generation investment treaties.

The ECT is the most frequently invoked treaty in investor–state arbitration, accounting for 122 known cases. Arbitral awards in ECT cases have reached hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars—and even tens of billions of dollars in the famed Yukos v. Russia awards.

Beyond the impressive number of cases and sums involved, the ECT has raised controversy for allowing foreign investors to undermine states’ right to enact sustainable, climate-friendly energy policies, including the European Green Deal, a proposed policy package that is one of the core agenda items of the incoming European Commission.

ECT “modernization”: Can the treaty be aligned with the SDGs and the Paris Agreement?

The Energy Charter Conference, which is the ECT's main governing body, announced on November 6, 2019, that it is going forward with efforts to “modernize” the treaty. Negotiations are expected to start in December 2019 and continue throughout 2020. The ECT’s outdated provisions do beg for modernization in various aspects, in line with developments seen in investment law and policy.

However, in light of the urgent need for climate action, what the ECT really needs is a fundamental overhaul. To advance climate goals under the UN’s Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals, the ECT should encourage low-carbon, sustainable energy investments; discourage carbon-intensive, unsustainable investments; and support government measures to promote a just transition. These practical approaches are advanced in the model Treaty on Sustainable Investment for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation, proposed by The Creative Disrupters, one of the winners of the Stockholm Treaty Lab contest.

Some ECT members seem to be aware of the need for an overhaul. The European Union (EU) is an ECT member on its own account, along with all individual EU member states with the exception of Italy, which withdrew from the treaty with effect from 2016. The EU’s negotiating directives point toward a modernized ECT that works for climate and sustainability, not against it. But other than the EU, only Albania, Azerbaijan, Luxembourg and Turkey have so far officially indicated their willingness to address climate change in the ECT reform process.

On the opposite end, Japan has stated that it “believes that it is not necessary to amend the current ECT provisions,” proposing minor adjustments and “an option to keep all ECT provisions as they are.” Given that amending the treaty requires members’ unanimity, aligning it with climate and sustainability imperatives may prove to be an uphill battle.

Make it or break it

The German, Swedish and Dutch cases show that, with the ECT in place, there is no safe place for governments to adopt sustainable and climate-friendly energy policies without threats of investor–state disputes. These disputes can lead to costly arbitrations or put pressure on governments to refrain from adopting policies or to roll them back.

Current ECT members—the EU and its member states in particular—should seize the modernization momentum to show genuine climate leadership. If ongoing modernization attempts fail to achieve climate-friendly and sustainability-oriented reform of the treaty, the only reasonable way forward is for members to terminate the ECT or withdraw from it.

Instead, climate leaders should form new—or join existing—initiatives geared toward sustainability and climate action, such as the Agreement on Climate Change, Trade and Sustainability (ACCTS), recently launched by Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway.

In the meantime, states outside the ECT should refrain from acceding to the treaty or signing the 2015 International Energy Charter, a non-binding political declaration covering topics such as trade in energy, improved energy efficiency and greater sectoral cooperation. The ECT’s outdated investment protection regime poses significant risks to countries that may wish to enact policies to move away from non-renewable energy sources. Joining it now—when even some of ECT’s own members realize that the treaty works against climate and sustainability imperatives—is an irony that can be easily avoided.

The author would like to thank Howard Mann, Sofía Baliño, Vanessa Farquharson and Nathalie Bernasconi for reviewing and providing helpful comments on drafts of this piece.

Environmentalism has become mainstream. Recycling is now a $200 billion global industry. Sustainability has become a significant focus for global corporations. And governments have been introducing major programmes to cut carbon emissions.

It wasn’t always this way. In the 1960s, worrying about our impact on the Earth was perceived as a niche pursuit. So how did we get to where we are today? Here’s a timeline of some key developments.

1962 – Silent Spring

The book that is widely seen as having launched the modern environmental movement was written by an American ecologist, Rachel Carson. Silent Spring took aim at the use of pesticides and the damage they were causing to biodiversity. Carson called for environmental stewardship and a more considered approach to human intervention in the natural world.

1971 – Greenpeace

The ship was forced to turn back, but the mission captured the public imagination. Greenpeace is now an international organization with offices in 40 countries and its own research laboratories. It is still involved in direct action, but also lobbies governments for policy changes and conducts investigations into “environmental crimes”.

1989 – Margaret Thatcher

Known as “The Iron Lady” for the certainty she had about her political views, the former UK Prime Minister also raised awareness about climate change in a series of domestic and international speeches.

In November 1989, she told the UN General Assembly: "The environmental challenge that confronts the whole world demands an equivalent response from the whole world. Every country will be affected and no one can opt out.”

Since Thatcher’s heyday, a significant number of people around the world have come to believe that human activity is responsible for climate change – including 71% in India and 69% in Spain.

1992 - Adoption of the 'Rio Conventions'

The Rio Earth Summit in 1992 saw three conventions adopted, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the first global treaty on the climate.

The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, with 197 countries having ratified it to date. It not only recognised the problem, but also sought to stablise emissions, direct financial support to where it was needed and keep tabs on the extent of the issue - all without impacting economic progress.

The two other conventions adopted in Rio were the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Diversification.

1997 – The Kyoto Protocol

Five years after Rio, the international community went one step further with the Kyoto Protocol, which set out binding emissions targets for developed countries. It committed 37 industrialized nations and the European Community to cut their emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5% by 2012, compared with 1990 levels.

The agreement came into effect in 2005. By 2015, the countries that had taken on targets under the treaty had reduced their emissions by roughly 20%.

2015 – The Paris Agreement

The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the decision-making body of the UNFCCC. It has held a climate change conference in a different location each year since it was established in 1995.

At COP21 in Paris in 2015, parties to the UNFCCC agreed to accelerate their climate action, with the aim of keeping the global temperature rise in the 21st century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally limiting any increase to 1.5°C.

The Paris Agreement has now been ratified by 187 signatories. The United States was one of the first nations to sign, but the country has since announced it will withdraw from the agreement.

2018, 2019 – Greta Thunberg

In the summer of 2018, Swedish schoolgirl Greta Thunberg first began “climate striking” – sitting outside her country’s parliament every school day for three weeks to protest about the lack of policy action on climate change.

She was recently nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

In the last week of September 2019, 6 million people around the world joined protests calling for climate action.

There’s no question that abandoning fossil fuel subsidies will benefit the economy and the planet, but as protests in Ecuador show, reforms require careful design and considerate execution in order to look after the vulnerable and get citizens on board.

We know fossil fuel subsidies are costly, inefficient and environmentally harmful. There is a compelling case to put a stop to them. But to do so effectively isn’t as easy as drafting new legislation, announcing the change and sitting back to a round of applause. If done too hastily, scrapping such subsidies can lead to widespread political unrest, as has been the case this month in Ecuador. President Moreno has witnessed firsthand that, in order to get citizens on board with such reforms, there must be a foundation of trust, along with a clear plan to protect vulnerable segments of the population and, ideally, to phase in the reforms gradually.

What happened in Ecuador?

On October 1, Moreno’s government announced the rapid removal of subsidies for gasoline and diesel as part of a larger austerity package (el paquetazo) initiated by the government in response to an International Monetary Fund loan from February 2019 that is conditional on fiscal reforms. The removal of these subsidies alone were estimated to result in savings of around of USD 1.4 billion per year.

One immediate effect of the subsidy reform was a significant hike in fuel prices, with gasoline prices increasing by 25 per cent and diesel prices roughly doubling. This sparked a wave of public outrage over Decreto 883, marked by 12 days of violent protests, which at one point led the government to move out of its capital city, Quito.

While it may be tempting to associate fossil fuel subsidy reform with protest, it is important to acknowledge this is not the usual outcome

While the protests were initiated by transportation workers, Indigenous groups from the Amazon and the Andes took on a leading role. Not only are Indigenous Peoples from rural areas especially vulnerable to an increase in transportation fuels for buses, cars and tractors, some may also cling to low fuel prices as the only tangible benefit they have seen from oil drilling and other forms of resource extraction in their homelands.

After negotiations with the Indigenous Nations Confederation on the weekend of October 12 and 13, mediated by the United Nations, Moreno cancelled Decreto 883 and agreed to reinstall fossil fuel subsidies.
 

A familiar story?

The situation in Ecuador is just one example of how reforms to fossil fuel subsidies and energy prices can, if done too hastily, trigger citizen-led protests. In France, President Macron’s attempt to increase fuel taxes was met with the gilets jaunes (yellow vests) movement. The persistent large-scale protests in 2018 and 2019 prompted the French leader to first suspend and eventually cancel the environmentally minded price reform. In 2017, Mexican protestors took to the streets to protest el gasolinazo, an abrupt 20 per cent hike in diesel and gas prices. The backlash over the Mexican government’s subsidy reform caused economic disruptions, blockades and violent demonstrations.

But while it may be tempting to associate fossil fuel subsidy reform with protest, government instability and eventual backtracking on the new policy, it is important to acknowledge this is not the usual outcome. 50 countries across the globe successfully reformed at least part of their fossil fuel subsidies between 2015 and 2018; this shows that, on the whole, governments are learning how to design and implement reform policies that stick.

How can fossil fuel subsidy reform be successfully implemented?

1. Create visible and effective compensation packages

Most importantly, governments must prepare for reforms by first organizing and implementing social welfare programs that compensate for the impending hike in energy prices and can be targeted at those who need them most. Social welfare systems already in place can be supplemented to further cushion the effects.

A major review of the political economy of subsidy reforms highlights that improvements in social protection systems are critical to the success of reforms. In order to harness public support for the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies, social compensation programs should be implemented alongside or even prior to reforms. This might have been one of the faults of President Moreno’s reform package for Ecuador, which promised welfare payments for the poor but did not deliver these in time to get people on board with the reform and cushion the effects for vulnerable populations. In the context of carbon pricing, recent research from Nature Climate Change suggests that it is important to design compensation mechanisms such that they concentrate benefits on key constituencies, as this can help increase public support. Targeted transfers can turn groups that would likely oppose the removal of subsidies into constituents who are more likely to ensure that reforms go smoothly and stay in place over the long run.

There are many examples of countries implementing fossil fuel reforms successfully by employing effective compensation packages. The Philippines managed to smooth the transition away from fossil fuel subsidies by using targeted cash transfers to help build a national safety net alongside lifeline tariffs to protect the poor in the process of reforms. Indonesia’s first large-scale unconditional cash transfer system was created in only six months in order to compensate for subsidy reforms. The country used a basket of social protection policies covering education, health insurance, food subsidies, cash transfers and infrastructure programs. Ghana’s reform of subsidies to gas and diesel was accompanied by a livelihoods program to support families. Morocco expanded a national conditional cash transfer as well as education and health insurance schemes at the same time as reforming.

2. Generate positive social dialogue

In the context of the gilets jaunes protests in France, the Global Subsidies Initiative has highlighted the role that social dialogue and citizen engagement play in getting the public on board with reforms. In the early stages of now successful reforms in Ghana and Indonesia, governments consulted with labour unions, consumer associations and other stakeholder groups. Listening to citizens can help policy-makers understand their needs and positions and adjust reform plans to reflect their concerns.  In addition, targeted communication campaigns can help to get across the rationale and benefits of phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. In Indonesia, for example, President Joko Widodo made the subsidy reform a topic of his election campaign, explaining all the benefits that budgetary savings could unlock. Indonesia freed up USD 15.6 billion and increased its budgetary expenditure by a similar magnitude in safety nets, transport, infrastructure and transfers to villages.

3. Understand that change is good, but not all at once

In the case of Ecuador, a large part of the nation’s discontent may be traced back to the sheer force with which the reform hit its citizens. Ecuadorian policy-makers would likely have been better served with a more careful and gradual removal of fuel subsidies, which the International Monetary Fund had also advised. Small price increases are easier to swallow and made it possible for citizens to adapt to the new price situation over time.

Research by Jordan Kyle at Columbia University further highlights that a phased approach is advised in environments marked by political mistrust and corruption. Citizens tend to be on board with fossil fuel subsidy reforms only when the government can credibly demonstrate that they will also deliver on social compensation promises. Implementing reforms step-by-step allows citizens more time to start trusting that governmental compensation schemes will indeed reach them. According to Kyle, Indonesia’s success in reforming fossil fuel subsidies can in part be traced back to the trust-building and phased nature of its reform approach.

What’s next for Ecuador?

There is hope that a second attempt at reforms in Ecuador will be successful. In his statement on the repeal of the reform, President Moreno announced “the Government will replace Decreto 883 with a new one that contains mechanisms to focus resources on those who need them most.” This time around, Moreno vowed to work with the Indigenous movement to design a convincing reform package. Chances are, citizens won’t judge this package by its ability to reduce the fiscal deficit but by its potential to make their lives better. What matters in the end is that public funds are reallocated to serve societal welfare more effectively and equitably.

Want to know more?

To find out more, have a look at the IISD Global Subsidies Initiative’s Guidebook on Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reforms and further research from IISD on strategies for a just transition.

“The world is waking up and change is coming, whether you like it or not.” The words of Greta Thunberg were buzzing through different media channels the week I arrived in Jakarta to launch IISD and the Swedish Energy Agency’s new report, Getting to 23 Per Cent: Strategies to Scale Up Renewables in Indonesia.

We soon realized that Greta’s calls to action, along with many other rallying cries, weren’t just in the media; they were being shouted on the streets as the country was holding its first-ever climate strike. Thousands of people, youth especially, were calling for Indonesia and countries around the world to live up to their commitments on climate change. Students were coming together to demonstrate that they were no longer willing to simply go along with what their leaders were proposing. 

We launched our report at a local hotel, as part of an event called “The Future of Renewable Energy Policy.” It may not have attracted the fanfare or media attention of the climate strikes, but the findings in the report address precisely what Jakarta’s protesters were looking for—solutions to the energy crisis that can be implemented now. Swedish Ambassador Marina Berg set the stage by reminding those in attendance to heed Greta’s words, because we were the ones with the ability to set the necessary wheels in motion.

My colleague Anissa Suharsono carefully explained what more than two dozen experts she and the IISD team had interviewed were recommending, in particular some concrete ways that Indonesia can break out of its coal dependence and embrace renewables. Indonesia has installed less than 1 GW of solar and wind electricity in the period from 1985 to 2017. If the country intends to meet its commitment to the Paris Agreement, the share of renewables in its energy sector must nearly double in the next five years, hitting 23 per cent of the nation’s total energy by 2025.

Is this even possible? Technically, yes. Our study shows that Indonesia hasn’t been using renewable resources to their greatest potential. The experts we interviewed were confident that a few adjustments to Indonesia’s policy approach could boost sustainable energy investments and allow Indonesia to meet its goals in time. Our recommendations for Indonesia are therefore to immediately:

• Press pause on coal: By all accounts, Indonesia is already over-expanded on coal and must place a moratorium on building any new coal plants.
• Seize the sun: While land acquisition is a challenge in Indonesia, the country is poised for a solar rooftop resolution that can be achieved with simple regulatory reforms.
• Get the prices right: This means ending subsidies and fiscal supports for coal and reforming the country’s “BPP” pricing system, which currently prohibits renewables from earning the same market price as coal power.
• Evolve from biofuels to bioenergy: There are concerns over the economic and environmental sustainability of biofuels in Indonesia, but there are lots of options for bioelectricity that can diversify electricity supply and reduce emissions at the same time.

Although representatives from the Indonesia Renewable Energy Association (METI) indicated that Indonesia might be even further from its goals due to inconsistencies in reporting, there were nonetheless signs to remain hopeful. Ida Nuryatin Finahari, the Director General of Geothermal in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (MEMR), outlined new plans to grow renewables in the coming years; while there wasn’t full agreement with IISD’s suggested path forward, it was reassuring to hear their commitment.

Debate was spirited when it came to the future of solar versus coal, and how quickly changes could be made. Everyone agreed, however, that it’s absolutely necessary for Indonesia to expand its renewable energy sources, and do this as soon as possible.

I walked away feeling that perhaps I wasn’t the only one who felt the urgency behind the student-led climate strikes this week; everyone in the room seemed to understand that now is the time to act. The clock is ticking and the climate can’t wait.