Editorial by Achim Steiner,
UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive
Director - Published in the Official Newsletter
of the G-20 Summit
With plans to decrease
deforestation and reduce carbon emissions
worldwide, the Copenhagen climate summit
has made some valuable steps forward
The Copenhagen climate
summit was neither the breakthrough so many
had hoped for nor the breakdown that seemed
possible in the late hours of that final
day in December 2009.
Despite the pessimism
in the press, forward steps were taken.
If fully implemented they could go a long
way toward keeping a global temperature
rise to 2°C or less by 2050.
Much credit must go
to rapidly developing countries including
Brazil, China, Indonesia and South Africa.
They produced plans to tackle their emissions
and have had these plans internationally
monitored and verified. For the first time
in the history of international cooperation
on climate change, there is a voluntary
partnership between North and South backed
by emission targets and intentions. Indeed,
more than 100 countries associated themselves
with the Copenhagen Accord.
Developed countries
pledged $30 billion of climate support to
developing economies and said those funds
would lead to perhaps $100 billion in annual
funding by 2020. The $30 billion, over three
years, will assist developing economies
adapt to climate change. It will also catalyze
a transition to a low carbon economy based
on cleaner energy systems.
Perhaps the brightest
outcome of Copenhagen relates to forestry.
Up to 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas
emissions are linked to deforestation. Paying
developing economies to conserve rather
than chop down their forests could curb
these emissions and generate important benefits
to local and national economies. Such benefits
include enhanced water supplies, soil stability,
employment in natural resources management
and reversing the rate of biodiversity loss
- an elusive target that was to have been
met during this year's United Nations International
Year of Biodiversity.
Indonesia could earn
up to $1 billion annually if it halved its
rate of deforestation under current, relatively
low prices for carbon; it could earn more
if greater efforts to curb emissions drive
the price of carbon higher.
The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization and the UN Development Programme
are spearheading the UN Collaborative Programme
on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation. Recognizing the
value of natural systems in combating climate
change is an extremely promising path, because
of the mitigation as well as adaptation
services provided by such systems. One area
is sustainable agriculture, including organic
agriculture. Organic agriculture triggers
sharply polarised views: some consider it
the luxury of the rich; others suggest it
can play a far wider role.
Research by UNEP and
the UN Conference on Trade and Development
on projects in Africa where small holders
had switched to organic or near organic
practices found that yields more than doubled
after the switch. That increase was 128
per cent in East Africa. Organic agriculture
also locks carbon into soil. In collaboration
with the World Agroforestry Centre and a
group of scientists, UNEP recently launched
the Carbon Benefits Project to assess how
much carbon is sequestered in soils and
vegetation under different land management
regimes. The goal is to establish a standard
so an investor in Frankfurt or London or
Singapore or New York will know how much
to pay a farmer or landowner for the carbon
removed from the atmosphere. While the adaptation
potential of mangrove forests as natural
coastal defences may be known, the carbon
removing services are not. Experts estimate
that carbon emissions - equal to half the
annual emissions of the global transport
sector - are captured and stored by marine
ecosystems such as mangroves, salt marshes
and sea grasses.
But according to UNEP's
Blue Carbon report released before Copenhagen,
far from maintaining and enhancing these
natural carbon sinks, humanity is damaging
and degrading them at an accelerating rate.
It estimates that up to 7 per cent of these
'blue carbon sinks' are lost annually, or
seven times the rate of loss of 50 years
ago. There is now a proposal for a Blue
Carbon fund like the one for forests that
could tip the economic balance in favour
of conservation.
Earlier this year UNEP,
in collaboration with Indonesia and other
UN agencies, launched a science assessment
project to bring even greater precision
to the carbon sequestration potential of
marine ecosystems. Additional scientific
support from G8 and G20 countries is welcome.
All eyes are now on the next climate convention
meeting in Cancun in November and December
2010. The G8 and the G20 can - along with
other forums - play an important part in
the chances for success there.
Despite some significant
moves forward in terms of emissions, Copenhagen
has left a gap between where science says
emissions need to be in 2020 - to limit
the temperature rise to 2°C or less
in 2050 - and where they stand today.
This is the conclusion
of a new greenhouse gas modeling study based
on the estimates of researchers at nine
leading centres, compiled by UNEP and launched
in February. The experts suggest that annual
global greenhouse gas emissions should not
be larger than 48.3 gigatonnes (Gt) of equivalent
carbon dioxide in 2020 and should peak sometime
between 2015 and 2021.
They also estimate that
global emissions need to fall between 2020
and 2050 by between 48 per cent and 72 per
cent. Consequently, greenhouse gases must
be cut by 3 per cent annually over that
30-year period. Yet the researchers found
that even with the best intentions there
is a gap of between 0.5 Gt and 8.8 Gt of
carbon dioxide equivalent per year, amounting
to an average shortfall in emission cuts
of 4.7 Gt. If the low end of the emission
reduction pledges are fulfilled, the gap
is even bigger: 2.9 Gt to 11.2 Gt of carbon
dioxide equivalent per year, with an average
gap of 7.1 Gt.
Many assumptions lie
behind these figures, not least about actual
growth rates of rapidly developing economies
over the next decade and the consequent
emissions. Nevertheless, higher ambition,
especially among developed economies, is
needed - fast. Contributions could also
come from including emissions from aviation
and shipping in pledges and plans.
The good intentions
of countries such as Brazil and Indonesia
are also linked to financing. This underlines
the urgency of turning the $30 billion pledged
into investments on the ground. That transformation
could go a long way toward building the
practical and political confidence and cooperation
that took a blow at Copenhagen.
Many developing countries
will need clear, transparent reassurance
that developed economies are providing new
money, rather than repackaged pledges or
funds diverted from aid or other existing
budgets. Investment in renewable energies
and forestry can also support the carbon
markets in advance of an international agreement
on climate change.
Some countries are not
prepared to wait for a new international
treaty to shift to a low carbon, resource
efficient 21st-century green economy. More
than 30 per cent of China's stimulus package
is being spent on highspeed rail, renewables
and energy efficiency projects. In
Korea, 90 per cent of
stimulus is similarly earmarked for green
investments. About 30 developing countries
and economies in transition have requested
UNEP's assistance in transforming their
economies and development strategies to
a green economy. Some countries are moving
forward because it makes economic sense
as well as social and environmental sense.
Meanwhile, some of the
old geopolitical structures are being stood
on their head. In April 2010 General Electric
of the United States announced that it and
the State of California had signed a broad
cooperative agreement with China's Ministry
of Railways. Chinese labourers played a
crucial role in the construction of America's
railroads 150 years ago; today China supplies
not workers but high-tech know-how.
The challenge for the
G8 and the G20 is to be part of that change
while recognising that only through a global,
fair and equitable agreement can climate
change be addressed fairly and equitably
in all 193 countries, all at different points
in development and some acutely vulnerable
to climatic impacts.
The high-speed train
is leaving for some, but others - including
small islands and countries on continents
such as Africa, Asia and Latin America -
may be left behind if a multilateral solution
under either the UN Framework Convention,
its Kyoto Protocol or an inclusive and fully
supported Copenhagen Accord cannot be found.
