On behalf of IISD’s Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI), I presented at the panel discussion on Addressing the Challenges for the Global Energy Transition towards Climate Compatible Future on August 7 at the Civil 20 (C20) Summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

The summit’s objective was to facilitate an exchange among civil society representatives from G20 and other countries on the G20 agenda. The policy recommendations were submitted to Argentine President Mauricio Macri ahead of the Leaders’ Summit. A set of these recommendations sought to make the G20 countries more accountable with respect to progress on their climate pledges.

Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (FFSs) is one such G20 commitment that has significant implications for the climate but also for the financial, economic and social sustainability of G20 countries. In 2009, G20 countries committed to phasing out FFSs and, ever since, have reconfirmed this commitment at every Leaders’ Summit. This commitment is also reiterated through Sustainable Development Goals (target 12.c) and Article 2c of the Paris Agreement on “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.”

However, the G20 countries’ progress against these commitments have been limited. According to the Scorecard recently released by GSI, Overseas Development Institute, Oil Change International and Natural Resources Defense Council, G7 countries alone provided at least USD 100 billion in government support to fossil fuels on annual average in 2015–16.

I presented findings from the Scorecard, which tracks the progress towards the phase-out of FFSs against dozens of indicators grouped in three clusters: transparency, pledges and commitments, and ending support for fossil fuel exploration.

This scorecard identified leaders and laggards across different indicators, but overall, no G7 country scored strongly; every G7 country is at serious risk of not delivering on their fossil fuel phase-out commitment.

However, G7 countries are only a subset of G20 countries, representing the richest economies. In fact, some of the largest recent reforms of FFSs have been in the large emerging economies that are G20 members: India, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. India initiated FFS reforms by deregulating market prices of petrol and diesel, imposing a carbon tax[1] (the Clean Energy [Coal] Cess), which funded research and innovative projects in clean energy technologies or renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Government reduced allocation of subsidized kerosene to states, thereby reducing kerosene subsidy expenditure. Further, in order to improve targeting, LPG subsidies are being provided through a direct cash transfer scheme. As a result of all these measures, a GSI report reveals that FFSs in India declined over the period fiscal year (FY) 2014 to FY 2016, while subsidies to renewables increased.

In order to meet  universal energy access targets, IISD is working with governments, policy-makers, policy think tanks, etc. to deploy innovative measures like the Clean Energy Subsidy Swap[2] by reallocating the existing FFSs to push for more clean energy alternatives. Argentina has also initiated reforms, and data reveals that FFSs registered an interannual drop of 27 per cent. Maria Marta, Directora de Investigación, FARN, presented the data that showed that FFSs in Argentina reached USD 9.487 million in 2017, equalling 5.6 per cent of the Argentinian public budget and 1.74 per cent of the national GDP for that year. Such subsidies reached USD 6.901 million in 2018, representing 3.1 per cent of the public budget and 1.26 per cent of 2018 Argentinian GDP.

The C20 summit in Buenos Aires concluded with a Communiqué and policy recommendations emphasizing the commitment to climate action through phasing out FFSs and ensuring a just transition to a 100 per cent renewable energy future in line with safe, sustainable access to energy for all. Civil society organizations called on all G20 countries to:

• Urgently set a timeline for the complete and equitable phase-out of FFS, leading with the phase-out of fossil fuel production subsidies by 2020, as a minimum
• Establish a timeline and clear guidance for the completion of peer review of FFS by all G20 members to enable equitable phase-out of all FFSs
• Set up a process to initiate the redirection of energy-related domestic and international public finance to only support cost-effective, clean, healthy and safe sources of renewable energy coupled with energy efficiency by 2020.

The impact of climate change is real, and time is ticking. So there is an urgent need for G20 countries to implement these recommendations and to work together to address the risks and impacts of climate change. G20 countries are inflicted with shared problems that require shared solutions.

[1] Clean energy cess is a kind of carbon tax and is levied in India as a duty of excise under section 83(3) of the Finance Act 2010 on Coal, Lignite and Peat. Vide Finance Act, 2016 the Clean Energy Cess was renamed as Clean Environment Cess.

[2] A SWAP is where countries implement fossil fuel subsidy reform and allocate some savings from reform toward sustainable energy and development.  A SWAP requires not only switching off the carbon subsidies that flow to fossil fuels but a parallel switching on of active support and investment into renewable and energy efficiency services.

There was a time when trade policy was a slow-moving, dull and predictable file that attracted scarce outside interest. Not so much these days. Since the Trudeau government cabinet shuffle of barely two weeks ago, the ongoing trade roller coaster shows no sign of letting up.

Last week, the U.S. Trade Representative told Congress that NAFTA talks are back on. While the wounds of the June G7 Summit are still healing, a "no-NAFTA and two bilateral deals" scenario seems behind us. Canada and Mexico have promised to negotiate in solidarity for a trilateral NAFTA. At the same time, the Trump administration said they will leverage this solidarity to gain concessions from Mexico first, and then Canada.

Last week, after an earlier taunt that Europe was a foe, Trump announced a ceasefire in escalating tariffs with Europe and eyed a possible new deal. At the same time, a coalition involving the European Commission, the United States and Japan has been working to save the World Trade Organization. The plan—as outlined by Europe’s Trade Commissioner over the weekend—calls for new WTO rules that allow smaller trade clubs to agree to new deals without requiring the consent of all members.

The aim of this coalition goes beyond the noble goal of breaking WTO paralysis. Its members are intent on curbing China’s influence. A growing number of countries have fallen in line with the big Trump trade card that frames the China trade question as a broader ideological split between state capitalism and market-based economies. Their proposal sees the ending of the WTO most-favoured nation clause. It’s unclear what will replace it. 

Into this mess comes a new Canadian trade minister. Jim Carr has a proven record as a strong, capable minister and effective communicator. Importantly, he comes with a new title: Canada’s Minister of International Trade Diversification.

If there ever was a time for Canada to diversify its approach to trade, it’s now.

Should a NAFTA deal be struck, urgency in diversifying Canada’s trade will fizzle. That would be a mistake. Here are three ways for Canada to diversify its trade that set the country up for long-term gains.

First, focus on new places. Expanding Canadian exports and trade beyond the United States is hard.  Currently, roughly 70 per cent of Canadian trade is with our nearest neighbour. However, recent agreements like the Transpacific Partnership, the Canada-Europe Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) or emerging deals with South America’s biggest trade bloc show the potential for Canada to expand to new markets with hundreds of millions of people. 

The toughest trade decision facing Minister Carr is China. The United States and others in the WTO are focused on what constitutes a "public body" and how subsidies have fuelled China’s state-owned enterprises. Canada’s history with crown corporations operating in competitive markets can form the basis of a joint China-Canada effort to flesh out the principle of competitive neutrality. It would be a start to framing a possible bilateral free trade deal.

Second, focus on new products. Canada is among the least-diversified economies of industrialized nations. Its share of manufacturing as a percentage of total GDP has shrunk in the last three decades, and its main economic engine is natural resources. This resource engine is sputtering, however: data from Statistics Canada show Canada’s natural capital has declined by 25 per cent since the 1980s. 

We have other options. Environmental goods and services make up a booming global market, including rapidly growing markets in cleaner energy, along with sustainable agriculture and forestry products. The size of the global clean market is currently roughly CAD 800 billion a year and is set to exceed CAD 1 trillion by 2025.

Finally, new trade procedures. Canada has always punched above its weight in the trade arena.  At this volatile time, it should step up again to bolster transparency, carve out environmental goods and services tariff preferences, and toughen rules for subsidies. Current practices see over USD 450 billion for fossil fuel subsidies alone, and much more in fishing and farming subsidies. Together these practices push the planet’s natural capital to a tipping point and keep families in poorer countries from competing.

There’s a slim chance the U.S. administration may develop a taste for predictable trade policy, but chances are remote. The stakes are too high for Canada to hope the next tweet carries good omens. Diversification not only hedges risks but opens new opportunities ahead.

Recently Venice installed turnstiles at city entrances to stem massive tourist flows.

The Philippines closed the popular island of Boracay for six months for rehabilitation from a raw sewage problem linked to overcrowding. Thai authorities permanently closed an island to prevent coral damage from tourist boat trips. Rwanda doubled the cost of a permit to see the critically endangered mountain gorillas to enhance the sustainability of conservation measures. The remote Micronesian island of Palau halved the number of flights allowed to arrive from China, its largest tourism market, to reduce the number of visitors.

(le français suit)

These seemingly strong measures to protect the environment, cultural heritage and local residents follow tourism’s explosive expansion in recent years. International tourist arrivals almost doubled between 2000 and 2016. It is now the second-fastest growing industry in terms of foreign direct investment (FDI) attraction. According to the World Bank, about USD 806.5 billion was invested in travel and tourism in 2016, compared to USD 680 billion in oil and gas. The growth of global tourism is predicted to continue as the expansion of the global middle class swells the ranks of aspiring travellers and their disposable incomes. Meanwhile international tourist arrivals in developing country destinations are projected to grow at double the rate of advanced economies.

Tourist numbers, FDI in tourism and regulations to limit the negative impacts of unsustainable tourism are all on the rise. Are we likely to see an increase in investors using investment treaties and contracts to challenge these regulations?

Foreign investors in tourism have a long and successful history of using investor–state dispute settlement (ISDS) under investment treaties and contracts. Since the first ever ISDS case before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) brought by the hotel chain Holiday Inn against Morocco in 1972, there has been a string of tourism sector ISDS cases, with many involving public interest regulations:

• In 2017 Dutch investors brought a case against Croatia for unfavourable court rulings with respect to environmental permits for a resort, against a backdrop of local complaints that the project would damage the environment and threaten Dubrovnik's UNESCO World Heritage Site status.
• In 2016 a British investor initiated a case against Mauritius, reportedly because his plans to develop a luxury hotel were stymied when the site was included in an area added to the list of UNESCO World Heritage sites.
• In 2014 a U.S. investor claimed USD 70 million from Costa Rica following the revocation of a hotel project’s environmental viability permit, because the site was found to include wetlands and a protected forest.
• In 2008 and 2009, Costa Rica faced two treaty claims from a German couple whose hotel was on land expropriated to expand a national park for the protection of turtles. In a similar contract case from 1996 against Costa Rica, the tribunal famously found that laudable environmental objectives were irrelevant to the question of compensation for expropriation.

Investors in tourism will always want access to areas that are unique, unspoiled, picturesque, ecologically and historically important — areas that are by their very nature sensitive and in need of regulatory protection. This is why foreign investments in tourism and national regulations to protect the environment, national heritage and other public interests have, and will continue to, come into conflict. In one case, these interests were even reversed and ISDS was used (albeit unsuccessfully) by a tourism investor claiming a state’s failure to abide by their own environmental obligations had “destroyed the value” of his eco-tourism project.

States wanting to sustainably grow their tourism sector may wish to join others in rethinking their approach to investment treaties and carefully negotiate any tourism investment contracts to preserve their regulatory policy space. Otherwise, they may need to buckle up for a bumpy ride ahead.

--------

Piège à tourisme: Alors que le tourisme apparaît comme un moteur économique important, de quoi les États doivent-ils se méfier?

Récemment, des portiques ont été installés aux entrées de la ville de Venise pour endiguer les flux touristiques massifs. Les Philippines ont fermé l'île populaire de Boracay pendant six mois pour la réparation d'un problème d'eaux usées non traitées lié à la surpopulation. Les autorités thaïlandaises ont fermé définitivement une île pour empêcher les dommages causés aux coraux par les excursions touristiques en bateau. Le Rwanda a doublé le coût des permis pour l'observation des gorilles de montagne en danger critique d’extinction, afin d'améliorer la durabilité des mesures de conservation. L'île micronésienne éloignée de Palau a réduit de moitié le nombre de vols autorisés en provenance de Chine, son plus grand marché touristique, afin de réduire le nombre de visiteurs.

Ces mesures apparemment fortes pour protéger l'environnement, le patrimoine culturel et les habitants font suite à l'expansion explosive du tourisme au cours des dernières années. Les arrivées de touristes internationaux ont presque doublées entre 2000 et 2016. C'est maintenant le deuxième secteur ayant la croissance la plus rapide en termes d’investissements directs étrangers (IDE). Selon la Banque mondiale, environ 806,5 milliards de dollars ont été investis dans les voyages et le tourisme en 2016, contre 680 milliards de dollars dans le pétrole et le gaz. La croissance du tourisme mondial devrait se poursuivre à mesure que l'expansion de la classe moyenne mondiale fait gonfler les rangs des voyageurs potentiels avec leur pouvoir d'achat. Pendant ce temps, les prévisions annoncent que les arrivées de touristes internationaux dans les destinations des pays en développement pourraient être deux fois plus élevées que les taux de touristes dans les économies avancées.

Les quantités de touristes, les IDE dans le tourisme et les réglementations pour limiter les impacts négatifs du tourisme non durable sont tous en hausse. Risquons-nous de voir une augmentation des investisseurs utilisant des traités et des contrats d'investissement pour contester ces réglementations ?

Les investisseurs étrangers dans le tourisme utilisent depuis longtemps et avec succès le mécanisme de règlement des différends entre investisseurs et États (RDIE) dans le cadre de traités et de contrats d'investissement. Depuis le premier cas de RDIE devant le Centre international pour le règlement des différends relatifs aux investissements (CIRDI) présenté par la chaîne d'hôtels Holiday Inn contre le Maroc en 1972, il y a eu une série de cas de RDIE dans le secteur du tourisme.

• En 2017, des investisseurs hollandais ont intenté une action contre la Croatie suite à des décisions judiciaires défavorables en matière de permis environnementaux pour un complexe hôtelier, sur fond de plaintes de la population locale selon lesquelles le projet porterait atteinte à l'environnement et menacerait le statut de Dubrovnik en tant que patrimoine mondial de l’UNESCO.
• En 2016, un investisseur britannique a intenté une action contre l'île Maurice, apparemment parce que ses projets de développement d'un hôtel de luxe ont été bloqués lorsque le site a été inclus dans une zone figurant sur la liste des sites du patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO. 
• En 2014, un investisseur américain a réclamé 70 millions USD au Costa Rica à la suite de la révocation du permis de viabilité environnementale d'un projet hôtelier, parce que le site comprenait des zones humides et une forêt protégée.
• En 2008 et 2009, le Costa Rica a fait face à deux réclamations en vertu d'un traité venant d'un couple allemand dont l'hôtel était sur des terres expropriées pour développer un parc national pour la protection des tortues. Dans une affaire similaire de 1996 contre le Costa Rica, le tribunal a estimé que des objectifs environnementaux louables n'étaient pas pertinents pour la question de l'indemnisation pour expropriation. 

Les investisseurs dans le tourisme voudront toujours avoir accès à des zones uniques, intactes, pittoresques et particulières d'un point de vue historique ou écologique - des lieux qui, par nature, sont sensibles et ont besoin d'une protection réglementaire. C'est pourquoi les investissements étrangers dans le tourisme et les réglementations nationales pour protéger l'environnement, le patrimoine national et d'autres intérêts publics sont souvent en conflit et continueront de l'être. Dans un cas en particulier, ces intérêts se sont trouvés inversés et le RDIE a été utilisé (quoique sans succès) par un investisseur touristique prétendant que le non-respect par un État de ses propres obligations environnementales avait « détruit la valeur » de son projet d'écotourisme.

Les États désireux de développer durablement leur secteur touristique pourraient souhaiter se regrouper pour repenser leur approche des traités d'investissement et négocier avec soin tout contrat d'investissement touristique afin de préserver leur marge de manœuvre réglementaire. Dans le cas contraire, ils auront plutôt intérêt à attacher leur ceinture car le voyage risque d'être cahoteux.

Couldn’t travel to the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF)—or even if you could, couldn’t be in every side event at once? IISD has you covered.

News from the HLPF

IISD’s trusted reporting sources covered all angles, participants and parallel events during the two-week gathering in New York:

• Earth Negotiations Bulletin coverage of the official sessions of HLPF – Check out the photos for each day and the final summary, with our signature cutting-edge analysis of the event. Our writers evaluate the HLPF 2018 experience, asking: “Are we the species monitoring our own extinction rather than doing something about it?”
• SDG Knowledge Hub coverage of HLPF – Stories on expert group meetings and reports leading up to the HLPF, along with summaries of selected side events and other happenings in and around UN Headquarters in New York during the HLPF. How do experts recommend monitoring interlinkages among the SDGs?
• ENB+ – Summaries and videos of selected HLPF side events, as well as videos that capture the HLPF experience.

Side Events Featuring IISD’s Work and Experts

IISD staff shared recent work from our programs at a number of side events during the HLPF, participating in the rich exchange of ideas, tools and methodologies for evaluating Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) implementation and identifying options for how to move forward on this integrated, universal agenda.

SDGs 1, 7 and 12 | Leadership on Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform for Sustainable Energy Access and Poverty Reduction

This side event was organized by New Zealand on behalf of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform (“Friends”), with Finland, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway as co-organizers. IISD's Global Subsidies Initiative coordinated the discussion on lifting people out of energy instability, during which Anna Zinecker, IISD, launched a new report titled Getting on Target: Accelerating Energy Access through Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform.

SDGs 11 and 17 | Unlocking the Potential of Communities with Data Dashboards

IISD organized this side event in cooperation with the Canadian Mission to the UN, where four North American communities—Hawai’i, New York, British Columbia and Winnipeg—shared how data visualization is helping them achieve the SDGs. A summary of the event is here.

SDGs 12 and 16 | Sustainable Strategic Public Procurement: Can the State be a Role Model for Sustainable Consumption?

IISD’s President and CEO, Scott Vaughan, moderated this side event on how government can use its buying power to advance sustainability. It was chaired by the Parliamentary State Secretary in the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Germany.

SDGs 16 and 17 | Supporting Integrated Implementation of the SDGs: Tools for Addressing SDG Connections and Enhancing Policy and Institutional Coherence

Lynn Wagner, Group Director, SDG Knowledge Program, presented IISD’s SDG Knowledge Hub and the Sustainable Asset Valuation (SAVi) tool for analyzing the costs of externalities of infrastructure projects. Watch the full event here.

There was Still More:

IISD's Lynn Wagner joined with Canadian stakeholder groups and government representatives to discuss working together for Canada's newly launched SDG implementation plan and to launch Alliance 2030.

After the HLPF concluded, Lynn Wagner attended a two-day meeting on Contributions of Supreme Audit Institutions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and moderated the discussion on stakeholder expectations and perspectives on the Supreme Audit Institutions’ contributions to the SDGs. A summary of the event is here.

For the fourth year in a row, Transparify—an initiative that assigns global ratings of financial transparency to think tanks and policy-driven non-profits—has given the International Institute for Sustainable Development the highest possible marks for financial disclosure.

That’s a tremendous shout-out to IISD’s character as we prepare to celebrate significant birthdays. This year, IISD Experimental Lakes Area turns 50, while our larger organization crosses the 30-year mark in 2020. It’s thanks to our culture of accountability and openness we’re making it past those milestones, I think. IISD has always invested in a financial team that delivers exceptional levels of professionalism and dedication.

Our decision to list all of our diverse donors, identify funding amounts and to detail the specific projects they support matters to modern donors. Gone are the days of giving to "charity"; donors today make "investments" that achieve verifiable progress.

I wholly endorse this mindset—one driven by an increased urgency to achieve sustainable development goals like increasing access to clean power or ending hunger. The needs of our planet have never been greater. It only makes sense to ensure the right dollars are going to the right causes from the right sources, with a diverse funding base that supports objectivity.

This shift also speaks to our more skeptical society. Last year the Edelman Trust Barometer, which surveys tens of thousands of people around the world, found we trust government, media, businesses and NGOs less. We’re less likely to take promises to “do the right thing” at face value.

In an age where authenticity and honesty are worth their weight in gold, IISD and other NGOs will continue to flourish in part by demanding rigorous standards. The Transparify report keeps us on that path—one we are committed to traveling for the next 50 years.

Somewhere back in the 12th century, a young man by the name of Francesco Bernadone heard a voice, telling him to “go and repair this house.” He set about repairing the chapel, and kicked off a movement that would revitalize the catholic church and inspire all who love nature.

Fast forward to March 2013, when Jorge Bergoglio was elected Pope—and chose the name of Francis.

It was just three years ago, on June 18, my birthday, that Pope Francis launched Laudato Si, an invitation to all for dialogue on the radical changes needed to repair our common home, the earth.

Last week, in Rome, his team from the Dicastery for Integral Human Development—led by Cardinal Turkson—convened voices from around the globe to celebrate and put into action the radical call for ecological conversion. People from all faiths coming together to share their voices and concerns.

We heard the voice of youth that told us not to worry about saving the planet as it would be fine and here long after we ourselves killed off our own habitat; and that the real issue was the survival of our species.

We heard the voice of a poet from the Marshall Islands, who lamented the loss of her home to rising seas, the fruit of our Industrial Revolution and carbon-laden consumer culture; and watched with horror as she faltered, stopped speaking, and crumpled as she fainted under the weight of her words.

We heard the voice of a shaman from Greenland, who brought tears to my eyes as he spoke of the disappearing ice that held the wisdom of the ages, melting away under a changed climate, crying out as plunging water from ice sheets into a rising ocean.

Every voice called out and appealed to us: do what you can now, to put “our canoe” as one speaker from the Pacific called it, back into the right direction. Stop agonizing, and start organizing said young Allen Ottaro from Kenya. Or as a young activist from India put it so succinctly, if not us, whom? and if not now, when?

The call had a special resonance for me, as one of the speakers compared the state of our planet to that of a cancer patient facing critical and chronic malfunction of vital organs—in this case ecosystems like the West Antarctica ice shelf, or the Gulf Stream, that stabilize our weather systems and climate.

Like the earth, I carried my own affliction inside, the result of complications from pneumonia, and felt like a living metaphor for a sick planet that needs healing and repair—and a change of lifestyle to begin the long road to recovery.

How can we do this?

On the planetary scale, we at the conference came up with three central ideas that can take us forward, back to health and repair.

First, we need to walk the talk. The church, the UN, schools and universities, need to become carbon-neutral and demonstrate that it is possible to be a both a good global citizen and a pioneer of the new economy. The UN does this through the Sustainable UN network, the Catholic Church does this through new initiatives like good lands.

Second, we need to put our money where our mouth is and lead by example. That means divesting our pension funds and savings from fossil fuels and carbon-loaded assets. Several participants from the financial sector showed us how something as simple as compulsory disclosure of carbon assets could go a long way to raising the bar on performance and sustainability.

Our own UN Environment Finance Initiative has moved the needle in this direction with its Portfolio Decarbonization project—now including over USD 800 billion of carbon-free assets.

And third, we need to engage in a dialogue that unites rather than divides, by seeking those elements that bring us together. Like the common purpose of bringing our own lifestyle choices into alignment with planetary health, sharing, and living more simply.

Or as Pope Francis put it in Laudato Si, to live wisely, think deeply and love generously.

Every day we are faced with simple choices that together add up and determine our collective impact on the environment and our future. 

The success of the #BeatPlasticPollution campaign, launched for World Environment Day in India in June of this year, rested on the recognition that it takes only a small shift to move away from single-use plastics to more durable alternatives.

And this year at the High Level Political Forum in New York, countries will report on their efforts to advance sustainable consumption and production—and notably, how new platforms like the One Planet Network can bring us together and unite our efforts.

Which is also why UN Environment has launched a new initiative to unite with communities of faith to repair our common home, #Faith4Earth. Reaching out to the literally hundreds of millions of people who find their home and strengthen their resolve to act in these communities of faith.

Because at the base of every decision lies a choice. To consume more responsibly, to live life more lightly, and to spend more time on the things that will rebuild the resilience of our common home.

Laudato Si at three years old.  Confronting us with the basic choices we all make every day, and urging us to join forces—and our voices—to repair and rebuild our common home.

Steven Stone is the Chief of the Resources and Markets Branch, part of the Economy Division, at UN Environment, a post he has held since 2010. His article was first published on the Green Growth Knowledge Platform July 13, 2018.

There’s an urgent need to prepare ecosystems for climate change impacts. Healthy ecosystems are critical for sustaining livelihoods. They also increase our capacity to adapt to climate change.

As more people recognize this need, an adaptation planning framework that emphasizes ecological health is critical. But what does Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) look like in practice?

The good news is that there have been over 200 EbA projects globally showing promising results. However, early experiences have also revealed that it can be challenging to scale up EbA, and therefore the approach has yet to reach its full potential.

Often, EbA initiatives resemble more traditional conservation projects that may have positive ecological and socioeconomic benefits for adaptation. But with the urgent need to prepare people and ecosystems for climate change impacts, we need such projects to directly address climate risks and vulnerabilities and incorporate current and future climate information to the best of our ability.

This leads to the question: How can we equip people working in the fields of adaptation, conservation and development with the information and guidance they need to design, implement and monitor feasible and effective EbA options?

Under the Ecosystem-Based Adaptation through South-South Cooperation (EbA South) Project, IISD has been collaborating with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to explore these questions and to develop a planning tool to help practitioners find the answers they need. We are excited to launch the result of this collaboration: ALivE – The Adaptation, Livelihoods and Ecosystem Planning Tool.

ALivE is a user-friendly computer-based EbA planning tool to support adaptation practitioners in organizing and analyzing information to plan feasible and effective EbA options.

This tool primarily relies on information collected from desk-based and participatory research processes. ALivE is accompanied by a user-friendly manual that provides step-by-step guidance for the tool and useful support materials for project staff.

“The EbA planning tool is very effective as it takes a step-by-step approach. During the process we were able to understand and visualize what EbA is and why it is important for people, their livelihoods and nature. Particularly, the process of identifying and prioritizing EbA options is very useful, considering multiple criteria and multiple indicators, looking at livelihoods, ecosystems, opportunities, barriers and other factors in one process.”—Anu Adhikari, IUCN Nepal

How does ALivE contribute to more effective adaptation?

To successfully reduce vulnerability to climate change, EbA interventions need a systematic consideration of the complexity of socio-ecological systems and the implications of current and future climate risks and changes for livelihoods and for ecosystem health. ALivE helps users to understand how livelihoods, vulnerable groups and ecosystems are affected by climatic and non-climatic stressors to identify and prioritize effective and feasible EbA options.

Additionally, the tool walks practitioners through the process of designing project activities and elements of a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework to support implementation and monitoring of prioritized options, emphasizing the need for adaptive management. It incorporates recognized criteria for EbA effectiveness, which can be applied by non-experts. The tool can be applied in any type of ecosystem.

The development of the ALivE Planning Tool was funded by Ecosystem-based Adaptation through South-South Cooperation (EbA South). AlivE is now publicly available and can be downloaded for free.

(This op-ed first appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on June 30, 2018)

Last fall, at the request of federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, I joined a diverse council of experts to discuss ways Canada can transition to a low-carbon energy system in the next 20 years. Among us were executives from the oil and gas sector, renewable energy companies, an energy storage entrepreneur, heads of environmental groups, efficiency experts and First Nations leaders.

Our mandate was clear: come up with a vision of how Canadians will turn on their lights, heat their homes and get to work a generation from now if we make changes that allow us to meet our Paris emissions targets.

There were things we didn’t agree on. Canada’s a big country with very different regional energy assets and people brought different priorities to the table. What was surprising was just how much consensus there was.

Everyone agreed we need to move much more aggressively on efficiency measures. We call on governments to work together to rapidly implement more efficient building codes. Retrofitting our homes and offices creates jobs. And saving energy also means saving money for Canadians; in Nova Scotia, the country’s first efficiency utility saves its citizens $110 million every year.

We agreed Canada should use clean electricity to our advantage. More than 80 per cent of our grid is already powered by low-carbon sources. Expanding the activities that tap our grid will reduce emissions. We could start by electrifying our transit fleets. The company supplying more than 7,000 heavy-duty transit buses powered by electric motors and battery propulsion across Canada and the U.S. is headquartered here in Winnipeg.

Council came together around the idea that renewable fuels need to be a bigger piece of the puzzle. As a country, we sit on immense feedstocks of agricultural, forestry and landfill waste materials that could create a bio-economy that creates jobs and boosts economic competitiveness. Edmonton has already started, building the world’s first commercial-scale facility that turns household garbage into biofuels and renewable chemicals.

Council shared the view that new opportunities are emerging, and needed, for Indigenous Peoples to provide leadership on energy strategy and energy development. Right now, there are 31 Indigenous-owned energy projects — or 50-50 partnerships between renewable energy companies and First Nations — underway across Canada.

Across all topics, we agreed governments should create conditions to allow entrepreneurs to build low-carbon solutions. A great example hit the news this month when B.C.-based Carbon Engineering — a firm backed largely by Bill Gates and Canadian oilsands mogul Murray Edwards — announced a breakthrough with technology that can suck carbon dioxide out of the air and produce a clean-burning fuel.

Regarding its success so far, the company’s CEO said: "We would not be in business if carbon pricing did not exist." And guess what the company is looking for as it licenses its technology? Clean fuel standards that will provide incentives for markets to purchase those fuels.

It is going to be complicated to shift our energy infrastructure. Governments will need to align efforts and ensure funding and fiscal incentives no longer support the status quo, but are deployed to attract capital and investment into energy solutions that improve Canada’s carbon profile. Our oil and gas sector will need to rapidly innovate to stay competitive in global markets seeking more affordable and least polluting supplies.

But the cost of failing to engage in a serious energy transition isn’t just that Canadians won’t compete in new markets. It’s that we contribute to a global failure to curb the real costs on the horizon, like repairing and replacing infrastructure increasingly threatened by more severe weather events and warmer temperatures.

The 2011 Manitoba flood displaced about 7,000 people; more than seven years later, 1,700 evacuees from several Manitoba First Nations still wait to go home. The overall cost for flood preparation, flood fighting, repairs to infrastructure and disaster payments that year was $1.2 billion. That same year, Canada’s National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy published a report estimating the economic impact of climate change for our country at between $21 billion and $43 billion per year by 2050.

So, let’s not get stalled in simplified, divisive narratives about climate change; as a country, we can’t afford it. Canadians need to recommit to a civil and serious conversation about an energy transition. That won’t happen if we retreat behind political calculations or near-term stock prices, or if we tune out as consumers. More is needed of each of us as citizens.

Let’s make an effort to come out of our corners and keep talking. Our energy future is about much more than a pipeline — if we make it so.

China is one key to advancing global sustainable development. China has set out ambitious targets to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement, and continues to share with the world its evolving concept of "Ecological Civilization."

China has declared war on air, water and land pollution and is deploying more stringent regulations, expanded air and freshwater monitoring systems, and tougher pollution enforcement action. It is also planning the largest expansion of urban planning in history to embed clean, low-carbon pathways. Dividends are being measured by way of cleaner air quality, especially in larger urban areas.

In late 2017, China launched the world’s largest climate market. The national climate cap-and-trade system will play a key role in peaking domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. China is also moving to have one fifth of its energy supply sourced from renewable energy by 2030, as well as finding ways to leap-frog towards clean energy systems through greater use of geothermal and district heating, among other actions.    

One critical pathway toward scaling up an ambitious, clean energy transition is via a financial system fit for ambitious climate objectives. China is the world leader in the greening of its financial system: it is the largest issuer of green bonds worldwide and is taking a systemic approach to greening the other parts of its financial system, including its insurance, stock market and underlying banking regulatory requirements.  

China has reiterated its commitment to providing international leadership in implementing the Paris Agreement. In June 2018, together with Canada and the European Community, China co-hosted the second Ministerial conference on climate change, where countries worked towards a single, coherent set of rules for the Paris Agreement, addressing climate finance and other priorities.

China has also taken steps under the Belt and Road Initiative to explore low-carbon, green and circular economy approaches with partners. In partnership with UN Environment, China’s Minister of Ecology and Environment launched the Green Belt and Road Coalition in 2017 to explore sustainable development options to support greater South-South cooperation.

Protecting Nature

In 2020, China will host to a crucially important international summit on biological diversity, to take stock of the state and fate of biological diversity. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Targets to conserve and protect land and marine ecosystems. Scientists are looking to the 2020 summit to substantially increase nature conservation targets. Many hope China, as host, instills the kind of urgency, ambition and creativity to biodiversity that Paris helped deliver in 2015 in tackling climate change.

Ecological Civilization

Many of these actions—from tackling climate change and protecting China’s fresh water, forests and mountains—are framed within China’s emerging concept of Ecological Civilization.

The 19th Chinese National Congress identified a number of comprehensive national environmental protection and climate mitigation actions to support Ecological Civilization. Actions reaffirmed in the 19th Congress included forestry conservation, increased marine protected areas, industrial planning to reduce air and water pollution, a commitment to national environmental monitoring and regulatory enforcement actions, and a host of others. In May 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping noted that the concept of Ecological Civilization is at the centre of China’s actions to advance sustainable development and identified the overarching values as well as technical aspects of this evolving plan. President Xi has noted that "lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets" that need to be preserved.

China’s ecological civilization embraces the three pillars of sustainable development—economic, social and environmental—and also includes notions of Chinese culture and history, as well as its political governance model.

Well-Being

An underlying aspect of Ecological Civilization is its focus on ecological protection and the means to balance economic growth—measured in indicators like Gross Domestic Progress (GDP)—with tools that account for ecological integrity and human well-being. 

The most important meeting in which the strategic concept of Ecological Civilization has evolved is the Eco Forum Global. In July 2018, President Xi welcomed the forum, noting:

China is ready to work with the international community to realize the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and build a clean, beautiful world.

At the 10th annual meeting of China’s Eco Forum Global, senior Chinese leaders and experts were again joined by international experts to examine specific areas of work.

An important focus of work is developing the tools and methods to strike a balance between ecological protection and GDP growth, specifically through emerging tools like ecosystem accounting and measurement. 

At the July 2018 forum, senior experts from China’s National Bureau of Statistics, the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, UN Environment and others noted the importance of measuring genuine progress, through ecological or integrated accounting systems. There is an impressive range of work underway to value ecosystems, deploy real-time environmental indicators at the provincial and urban levels, and embed new accounting systems to track and conserve ecological systems.

At the Eco Forum Global, IISD presented its ongoing work to measure the fuller dimension of wealth beyond quarterly income flows. The Comprehensive Wealth report, released by IISD experts in 2016, remains one of the few country-specific reports to measure all four pillars that comprise a nation’s wealth: natural capital, human capital, produced capital and social capital. The findings of IISD’s work in Canada echoe the alarming findings of global trends, in which the stock of natural capital is declining by alarming rates: by as much as 25–30 per cent in the past decade. 

In fall 2018, IISD will provide an update of this report, focusing on changes in natural capital wealth and the implications of continued losses.

Could the world’s battle with pollution be won with a series of innovative ideas and a rethinking of how we structure our economies?

With half the world now living in cities and billions of dollars spent each year on growth and infrastructure, we need to finance and implement sustainable infrastructure practices that reduce our environmental footprint, employ clean technologies and are economically viable.

Infrastructure, Industrialization and Innovation

Sustainable Development Goal 9, one of 17 global goals for people, prosperity and the planet, is dedicated to “build[ing] resilient infrastructure, promot[ing] inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster[ing] innovation.”

It seems like a broad goal, touching on everything from sustainable cities and scientific research to communications technology and financial services. A closer look at its targets, however, reveals a quite specific set of intended achievements.

For example, Target 9.5 looks at boosting scientific research and intends to increase the number of full-time researchers per million inhabitants, and the amount of money spent on research as a proportion of GDP.

In much of the developing world, especially in rural communities, many still suffer from a lack of access to new technologies that could improve their livelihoods and standard of living. For example, around 2.6 billion people in the developing world still face difficulties in accessing electricity full time and many do not have access to water or basic sanitation.

Target 9.1 aims to “develop quality, reliable, sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure.” This will be measured by the proportion of rural populations who live within 2 km of an all-season road (SDG indicator 9.1.1).

Sustainable Development Goal 9, one of 17 global goals for people, prosperity and the planet, is dedicated to building resilient infrastructure, promoting inclusive and sustainable industrialization and fostering innovation.

The disadvantages many developing countries are dealing with regarding financing new technologies is recognized in Target 9.A, which encourages technical and financial support to realize the immense potential that many of the world’s least-developed countries have for increased industrialization. 

More than four billion people across the globe do not have access to the internet. The role of communications technology is critical in a sustainable future, and Target 9.C seeks to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020—just two years from now.

Bridging these divides will set out a more level playing field when it comes to fostering and benefiting from innovation.

Building a More Sustainable Future

As we draw ever closer to the 2030 deadline to achieve these goals, there is much to suggest we are headed in the right direction.

In the least developed countries, while agricultural and traditional sectors remain the main sources of employment, worldwide about 500 million people are employed in manufacturing, with numbers steadily increasing in the developing world.

When it comes to innovation, low-income countries doubled their investment in research and development from USD 1.9 billion to USD 3.9 billion between 2007 and 2013. This still, however, represents a fraction of the global figure.

In 2013, there were 1,083 researchers per million inhabitants, on average, compared to 952 per million in 2007. However, it should be noted that this figure varies greatly across the world, and that women continue to comprise only a quarter of those researchers.

Access to mobile technology has spread rapidly around the world. By 2015, 69 per cent of the world’s population had access to mobile broadband networks. As expected, however, this dropped down to 29 per cent in rural areas.