The UN Women, with support from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), has launched a new guidebook to help practitioners mainstream gender into climate change projects and programmes. It has been described as a “go-to” publication, which presents methodologies and tools to address the gender gap.
Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director, UN Women
Gender mainstreaming for climate change is the process of assessing and responding to the differentiated implications for women and men of any planned climate action, including legislation, policies or programmes. Gender mainstreaming is not simply about adding a “women’s component”. Gender mainstreaming is about thinking differently, modifying climate and development interventions so that they will benefit men and women equally. It is about transforming social, economic and institutional structures towards gender equality and women’s empowerment in climate action and resilience building.
The impacts of climate change, including on access to productive and natural resources, amplify existing gender inequalities. Climate change affects women’s and men’s assets and well-being differently in terms of agricultural production, food security, health, water and energy resources, climate-induced migration and conflict, and climate-related natural disasters.
At the same time, women are powerful change agents to address climate change at scale. They are key actors in building community resilience and responding to climate-related disasters. Women tend to make decisions about resource use and investments in the interest and welfare of their children, families, and communities.
Systematically addressing gender gaps in responding to climate change is one of the most effective mechanisms to build the climate resilience of households, communities and nations.
For this, a paradigm shift is needed towards gender mainstreaming.
This guidebook is part of UN Women’s and its partners’ efforts to champion such a paradigm shift. The handbook can be accessed here.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will hold a scoping meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on from Monday May 1 to Friday, May 5, 2017 to draft the outline of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). The meeting will bring together 200 experts from some 60 countries.
The IPCC decided to produce the AR6 in February 2015. It is due to be completed in the first half of 2022. The meeting in Addis Ababa will draft the outline and indicative coverage of the contents of the three Working Group contributions to the report, which will be released in 2021, for consideration by the IPCC when it next meets in September. A further scoping meeting is planned for November 2018 to draft the outline of the Synthesis Report, which will integrate the three Working Group contributions and the three Special Reports that are being prepared in this assessment cycle.
“With this meeting we are taking a decisive step to advance the work plan of the IPCC. During the AR6 cycle we will see one or more policy-relevant reports released almost every year from 2018 until 2022,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC. “The AR6 Synthesis Report will be delivered in time for the first global stocktake in 2023 by the UNFCCC under the Paris Agreement.”
The AR6 will assess scientific findings that have been published since the IPCC’s last comprehensive report, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), which was completed in 2014. AR5 provided crucial input into the Paris Agreement on climate change adopted in December 2015. The AR5 report findings pointed to the fact that the world has the means to limit global warming and build a more prosperous and sustainable future, but pathways to limit warming to 2ºC relative to pre-industrial levels would require substantial emissions reductions over the next few decades.
Prior to the scoping meeting, IPCC Bureau members and authors are presenting the findings and activities of the Panel in workshops for policymakers, academia, media and students as part of a two-day outreach event on 29 to 30 April organised by the African Climate Policy Centre of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
“Africa is vulnerable to climate change but various adaptation and mitigation options exist to make society more resilient and create opportunities for a sustainable future,” said Youba Sokona, Vice-Chair of the IPCC. “We hope that these timely events will encourage more scientists from the region to participate in the work of the IPCC during the AR6 cycle.”
The scoping meeting, outreach event and an Expert Meeting on Mitigation, Sustainability and Climate Stabilisation Scenarios, which held 26 to 28 April, were hosted by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA).
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and ofo, a Beijing-based start-up company that has become the world’s first and largest bike sharing platform, are joining forces to raise public awareness about climate change.
L-R: Mr. Li Zekun, Vice President of Marketing, and Mr. Dai Wei, Founder and CEO, with ofo’s bright yellow bikes outside UN Headquarters. Photo credit: Freya Morales / UNDP
The partnership will also provide financial support to innovative projects that address urban environmental challenges, expected to reach 100 million people, including school children, with campaign messages about the adverse effects of climate change and ways all of us can reduce CO2 emissions.
UNDP and ofo will also establish a joint scholarship programme to support environmental research projects and will provide small grants to start-ups offering green products and technologies.
ofo, which currently has over 30 million people using its app to share bicycles in China, Singapore and the US, will donate its income on the 17th of each month to celebrate the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs – also known as the Global Goals – are an ambitious blueprint agreed upon by nearly 200 nations to eradicate poverty and inequality by 2030.
UNDP, which is the world’s largest development organisation, will advise ofo on an innovative initiative which will see ofo redistributing abandoned bikes to rural areas to improve access to education for children living in poverty.
“Both UNDP and ofo are innovators when it comes to finding ways of reducing the emissions related to the burning of fossil fuels, and this is an innovative partnership which will make real strides towards protecting our precious environment,” said Michael O’Neill, UN Assistant Secretary-General and UNDP Director of External Relations.
“We are very proud to be partnering with UNDP as we both work together towards achieving one of the key goals agreed by the world in 2015: the goal of a clean, sustainable safe environment and planet for all of us,” said Chief Executive Officer of ofo, Dai Wei.
Speaking to media executives in Abuja recently, Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour (Convener of Nigerians against GMOs), Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje (Food Sovereignty Programme, Friends of the Earth Nigeria/Africa) and Dr. Ifeyinwa Aniebo (African Health Magazine), jointly demand the protection of food and the environment via the revocation of Monsanto’s GMO permits, as well as the repeal of the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act of 2015
Minister of State for Environment, Ibrahim Jibril, (middle) with visiting CSO representatives such as Nnimmo Bassey (Director, Health of Mother Earth Foundation), Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour (Convener of Nigerians against GMOs) and Mariann Bassey-Orovwuje (Food Sovereignty Programme, Friends of the Earth Nigeria/Africa) on the issue of GMOs in Nigeria
The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act of 2015 was signed into law in the dying days of the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan. In spite of the far-reaching importance of biosafety matters to citizens of Nigeria, the process that led to the passage of the Biosafety Bill and its eventual signing into law was trailed by unresolved controversies and complaints from key stakeholders including farmers, consumers and civil society groups.
Besides the lack of elegance in the drafting of the law, some provisions do not make sense at all and in some places, references are made to incorrect sections or to non-existent sections. We believe the Act requires to be repealed or at a minimum have a thorough reworking, particularly with regard to the following:
Access to information
Public consultation and participation
Liability and redress
Labelling and the right to know
Decision-making
Appeals and reviews
Conflict of interest: The Composition of the Governing Board is arbitrary and populated with GMOs promoters
The Precautionary Principle
Conflict of interest is inbuilt in the NBMA Act and raises acute red flags about the administration of biosafety in Nigeria. For example, two of the permits issued by NBMA to Monsanto Agriculture Nigeria Limited (the confined field trial of two maize varieties) were applied for by the company in partnership with one of the members of the NBMA board, the National Biotechnology Development Agency (NABDA). With a GMO promoter applying for a permit in partnership with a biotech company, and sitting to approve the same permit, there are obvious reasons to call the entire transaction to question.
The NBMA Act gives the agency enormous amounts of discretionary powers with not enough mandatory duties in the operational provisions to ensure that the agency performs a stewardship role to ensure that GMOs do not pose harm to human and animal health, society and the environment.
We are also concerned that NBMA approved and issued “Permit for Commercial release/Placing on Market of Cotton (MON15985) genetically modified for lepidopteran insect pest” on Sunday 1st May 2015 when government offices do not open. In fact, 2nd May 2015 was also a public holiday. In addition, it is regrettable that NBMA approved Monsanto’s proposal for Bt cotton in May 2015 despite the fact that Burkina-Faso’s cabinet on April 14, 2016 announced its discontinuation with genetically modified cotton due to the poor quality of the cotton. It is worthy of note that cotton production has improved in Burkina Faso in both quality and quantity since they reverted to non-GMOs varieties.
In our objections to the applications by Monsanto and NABDA, we raised serious concerns that would have led to the rejection of the unwarranted applications if they had been considered. We raised concerns related to health, environmental, socio-economic, technical, administrative, molecular concerns, safety assessments and environment risk assessment. We also pointed out that the applicants did not show how they would deal with secondary pests, exposure pathways and pest resistance. Safety and environmental risks and issues of liability and redress were also not adequately addressed by the applicants.
NBMA by its letter of 28th April 2016 acknowledged receipt of objection from Health of Mother Earth Foundation and other civil society groups, stated: “Your observations have been noted by the Agency… That the National Biosafety Management Agency would review the application holistically and take the best interest of Nigeria, to avoid risks to human health, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The socio- economic impacts would also be well considered before taking the final decision on the application.”
We consider it intriguing and suspicious that a mere one working day after this letter, NBMA issued permits to Monsanto. There is no evidence that our objections were considered. This smacks of utter disdain for opinions and positions of concerned citizens who are conscious of the devastating socio-economic and environmental impacts of the failure of these crops, especially GM cotton in neighbouring Burkina Faso as well as in India, Pakistan and elsewhere.
In this era of change we cannot cling to wrong-headed policies or cling to the wrong foot put forward by the previous government. Having a biotech policy cannot be a justification for opening up the nation’s fragile ecosystems and environment to genetically modified organisms. A biotech policy cannot erase the globally accepted Precautionary Principle on which Biosafety regulations hang. We demand that these permits be overturned and the Biosafety law itself repealed and replaced with a people/environmentally sensitive and friendly law.
We reiterate our demand for a nullification of the permits issued to Monsanto and NABDA on Sunday 1st may 2016 and call for an investigation of the process and circumstances leading to the granting of these permits by NBMA to Monsanto and NABDA in disregard to the complaints of millions of Nigerians. Nigerians should not be used as pawns and as guinea pigs in a commercial gambit to open the country to toxic technologies in furtherance of blatant commercial interests.
We also pledge our readiness to work with the media to elevate the voices of Nigerians on these sensitive and life/death matters. We and our partners will also work with the Federal Ministry of Environment and other relevant ministries and agencies to repeal the NBMA Act 2015 that is formulated to flood our country with GMOs rather than protect our biodiversity and ensure biosafety and biosecurity.
The Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) first Structured Dialogue with Asia opened on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 in Denpasar, the capital city and main hub of the Indonesian province of Bali. The forum is seeking a common cause amid diversity in bringing together representatives from 24 nations, even as participants set out to share their climate experiences, and advise the GCF on how it can direct its investments in the region.
The city of Denpasar in Bali, Indonesia is hosting the Green Climate Fund’s (GCF) first Structured Dialogue with Asia
The four-day meeting is highlighting climate finance priorities in Asia. It is also providing opportunities for countries to show what progress they have made in responding to climate change.
The diverse nature of Asia means the types of climate challenges that nations in this region face vary greatly – from droughts and floods in India, caused by monsoonal variability, to obstacles in boosting renewable and energy efficiency in Mongolia, caused by outdated infrastructure.
Participating nations in the Structured Dialogue with Asia do, however, share a common purpose in their desire to seek opportunities in climate finance to build local capacities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to adapt to global climate change.
The GCF holds Structured Dialogues in all regions to encourage a free flow of ideas about effective climate finance. The consultations gather National Designated Authorities (NDAs) and focal points, Accredited Entities, a wide group of country stakeholders, both from civil society and private sector organisations, as well as GCF specialists.
An important outcome of GCF’s Structured Dialogues is the development of regional programming roadmaps that identify trends and emerging priorities for different regions.
The Indonesian Government is hosting this Structured Dialogue in Bali where it convened other pivotal gatherings such as the 13th United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNFCCC) in 2007 which launched the Bali Road Map, an early kick starter of climate cooperation leading to the 2015 Paris Agreement. Indonesia also hosted the 6th meeting of the Green Climate Fund Board in 2014.
Several ministers from Asian countries are attending the GCF Structured Dialogue in Bali.
The process for a comprehensive independent audit of the oil and gas sector by the Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) has commenced.
Executive Secretary of NEITI, Waziri Adio
The independent audit, to be conducted in line with the principles and standards of the global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, will cover the period 2015 and 2016 respectively.
Executive Secretary of NEITI, Waziri Adio, announced this recently in Lagos at a workshop for major oil companies and relevant government agencies expected to participate in the exercise.
Mr. Adio explained that the workshop was designed to acquaint the participants with the structure and content of the template, the kinds of questions that NEITI would ask and the answers expected to be provided by the covered entities. “This workshop is to seek your views, suggestions and inputs as well as listen to your concerns on how to make the exercise hitch-free,” Mr. Adio added.
The workshop witnessed presentations on the EITI processes, methods, principles and standards including emerging issues on beneficial ownership and contract transparency. The benefits of implementing EITI in Nigeria also topped discussions at the interactive session.
The Executive Secretary announced that NEITI would introduce a ranking reward system to incentivise participation of covered entities. Under the ranking system, companies will be graded based on their efficiency in populating the audit templates including the quality and depth of information and data provided, quick response to set deadlines among other considerations.
He further explained that the ranking system will be shared with over 51 member countries of the global EITI and multi-lateral organisations to serve as reference points on adherence to business ethics for major investment decisions in Nigeria.
Adio stressed: “NEITI is committed to working closely with the companies under the EITI framework to create good business environment that is conducive for the inflow of more foreign direct investments into the extractive sector. For this to happen we encourage all companies to embrace transparency, accountability and corporate governance in conformity with the EITI standards.”
He however warned that NEITI would not hesitate to invoke relevant sanctions under the law on companies and other covered entities that fail to cooperate with it during the exercise.
All major international oil and gas companies operating in Nigeria were represented at the workshop. Also in attendance were relevant government agencies such as the NNPC, the FIRS, DPR, NDDC and NLNG. The event was also attended by a cross section of the media and the civil society.
While reviewing the templates, the representatives of the respective companies welcomed the objective of the workshop, describing it as a fundamental step in building partnerships and trust with NEITI in the execution of its mandate. They urged NEITI to note very carefully their observations and the issues they have raised at the workshop with a view to ensuring that the reviewed template suits the peculiar operations of the diverse covered entities slated to participate in the process.
NEITI has already commenced distribution of the templates to participating companies and government agencies. All populated templates with the required information and data are expected to be returned to NEITI on or before the 31st of May, 2017. NEITI is expected to conclude the independent audit and make its findings public by the end of the year.
The independent audit of the oil and gas sector by NEITI for the period 2015 and 2016 will examine the fiscal, physical and process issues from, within and among the companies and relevant government agencies.
The audit will therefore undertake special verification and validation of information and data on the payments made by the companies to government entities as well as government receipts. Other areas that the audit will cover will include quantities and volumes of crude produced, balances payable or receivable on certain financial transactions, taxes, royalties on project by project basis, social contributions and investment flows.
The overall goal is to ascertain if the fiscal, physical and process transactions in the oil and gas sector during the period under review were in line with the transparency and accountability standards as well as the principles of the global extractive industries transparency initiative which NEITI is implementing in Nigeria.
Following Super Sport’s stoppage of the sponsorship of the Nigerian Professional Football League (NPFL), the League Management Company (LMC) has been advised to look inward towards live transmission of its league matches.
Adama idris
Former Director of Marketing of the Nigerian Football Federation (NFF), Adama Idris, said it has become crucial for LMC to shift base to local stations who, according to him, should be ready to take responsibilities.
“The media organisations within Nigeria like the Nigeria Television Authority (NTA) or under the umbrella of Broadcasting Organisation of Nigeria (BON), can’t they put money on the table to sponsor the league of this country as a national assets?”
Adama said sports is big business all over the world and must be seen as such by most of the domestic stations in Nigeria.
Super Sport over the weekend announced that it was withdrawing from the sponsorship of the Nigerian Premier League for alleged irregularities.
Meanwhile, former Super Eagles coach, Austin Equavoen, and goalkeeper trainer, Ike Shorunmu, were on Tuesday, April 25, 2017 unveiled as new handlers of Sunshine Stars of Akure.
They were charged to lift the team from its dwindling fortunes in the NPFL.
Team Chairman, Gbenga Elegbeleye, boasted after the unveiling the duo that Equavoen is the type of coach the Owena Waves needs now.
“He is a well learned coach and somebody with track records that would help the team from the relegation zone. I believe Equavoen has very good chance of doing the job for us,” he said.
Captain of the team, Sunday Abe, pledged his support and that of his teammates for the newly-appointed technical handlers.
Sunshine Stars is currently 18th on the league chat and has an outstanding game with Enugu Rangers of Enugu this weekend.
A new scientific assessment of climate change in the Arctic, by the Arctic Council’s Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), concludes that the Arctic is shifting – rapidly and in unexpected ways – into a new state. If current trends are allowed to continue, they will have increasingly profound impacts on human health and safety, industries and economies, and ecosystems around the world.
Arctic region
But the assessment, an update of AMAP’s 2011 Snow, Water, Ice, and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA) report, also found cause for hope: Implementing the 2015 Paris Agreement would limit the extent to which the Arctic climate changes over the remaining decades of this century. While the Arctic environment will continue to change regardless of efforts to reduce emissions, the Paris Agreement would strongly reduce future changes in the Arctic after mid- century, compared with a business-as-usual scenario.
More than 90 scientists contributed to the new assessment, which was peer-reviewed by 28 experts. The assessment mainly covered the period 2011-2015, with updates to include observations from 2016 and early 2017.
What have scientists observed?
The warming of the Arctic, marked by record-setting temperatures in recent years, is leading to continued or accelerating losses in sea ice and snow, melting of glaciers and ice sheets, freshening and warming of the Arctic Ocean, thawing of permafrost, and ecological shifts. SWIPA 2017 found that the Arctic was warmer from 2011 to 2015 than at any time in the period of instrumental records beginning around 1900 in the Arctic, and the Arctic has been warming more than twice as rapidly as the world as a whole for the past 50 years. During the winters of 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, near-surface air temperature extremes were nearly double (+6°C) those of the previous maximums for these months. Intrusions of warm air delayed sea-ice freeze-up in the Chukchi and Kara Seas, in turn allowing the warm air to advance further toward the North Pole.
A record low minimum in sea ice extent occurred in 2012, and a record low maximum sea ice extent occurred in 2016. New observations from March 2017 show the lowest extent ever for this month since the start of satellite observation. Most sea ice in the Arctic is now “first year” ice that grows in autumn and winter but melts during the spring and summer. The area covered by snow during the month of June in the North American and Eurasian Arctic is now typically about half that observed before 2000.
Meltwater from Arctic glaciers, ice sheets, and ice caps accounts for more than a third of global sea level rise, according to the new assessment. Since 2000, ice on Greenland – the source of 70% of the Arctic’s contribution to sea-level rise – has released enough meltwater to raise global sea levels by more than 1 centimetre.
What are the projections and implications for the future?
The physical, chemical, and biological environments of the Arctic are undergoing fundamental changes, with important consequences for Arctic ecosystems and people living and working in the Arctic. The Arctic plays an important role in global climate and weather, sea level rise, and world commerce, meaning that impacts in the Arctic will resonate far south of the Arctic Circle.
Autumn and winter temperatures in the Arctic are projected to increase to 4–5°C above late 20th century values before mid-century, twice the increase for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free in summer by the late 2030s, earlier than projected by most climate models. Changes in sea ice affect populations of polar bears, ice-dependent species of seals and, in some areas, walrus, which rely on sea ice for survival and reproduction.
Projections for the end of the century vary widely based on assumptions about future emissions. A high-emissions scenario (business as usual) would lead to transformative changes in the Arctic, with the average winter temperature in 2100 increasing by 12°C relative to that of the late 20th century. In contrast, an emissions reductions scenario (similar to but not as stringent as that envisioned under the Paris Agreement to keep global warming well below 2°C), would produce a warming in the Arctic of around 6°C in winter.
Studies have linked the loss of land and sea ice in the Arctic, along with changes in snow cover, to changes in Northern Hemisphere storm tracks, floods, and winter weather patterns – even finding evidence that Arctic changes influence the onset and rainfall amounts of Southeast Asian monsoons. This evidence suggests that future changes in the Arctic will affect weather elsewhere in the world even more than they do today.
Another key finding of SWIPA 2017 is that the most optimistic estimates of future sea level rise (at the lowest end of the range) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may be too low. If increases in greenhouse gas concentrations continue at current rates, the melting of Arctic land-based ice would contribute at least another 25 centimetres to sea-level rise between 2006 and 2100, potentially affecting hundreds of millions of people living along coastlines and low-lying islands.
What can we do?
To limit future damages, the world will need to make substantial near-term cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, greater than those currently planned by parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Achieving the targets of the Paris Agreement would cause Arctic temperatures to stabilise – at a higher level than today – in the latter half of this century, and would avoid more than 20 centimetres of additional global sea level rise compared with what would occur under a business-as-usual scenario.
Because the climate system takes time to fully respond to changes in greenhouse gas emissions, some additional climate change is inevitable regardless of efforts to reduce emissions. Changes are expected to be greatest in the Arctic, with ripple effects throughout the world. For that reason, action is also needed to help Arctic communities and global society reduce vulnerabilities to impacts such as sea-level rise, changes in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and changes in precipitation patterns.
The SWIPA 2017 Summary for Policymakers includes recommended action steps to reduce future climate change and its impacts on Arctic countries and nations throughout the world. These will be presented to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Arctic States and representatives of Arctic Indigenous Peoples’ organisations at the Arctic Council meeting in Fairbanks, Alaska, on May 11, 2017.
The world’s biggest investors are responding to the global commitment to tackle climate change and are rapidly scaling up action to protect their portfolios, reveals the annual benchmark report on the industry from the Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP).
CEO of Asset Owners Disclosure Project (AODP), Julian Poulter
Sixty percent of the world’s 500 biggest asset owners, with funds worth $27 trillion, now recognise the financial risks of climate change and opportunities in the low carbon transition and are taking action, an 18% increase since last year, with Europe and Australia leading the way, finds the fifth Global Climate 500 Index.
This year AODP has for the first time also assessed the world’s 50 biggest asset managers, who manage $43 trillion on behalf of their clients, over 70% of global assets under management. It finds that they are taking climate risk even more seriously, with only three US funds ignoring the issue.
However, 201 asset owners with $12.5 trillion in investments show no evidence of any action on climate risk, with North America and Asia lagging furthest behind. They include 68% of institutions in Germany, 67% in China, 63% in the US, 29% in Switzerland, 26% in Japan and 24% in Canada.
AODP CEO Julian Poulter said: “The Paris Agreement sent a clear message of global commitment to tackle climate change. Institutional investors are responding by rapidly scaling up action to tackle climate risk and seize opportunities in financing the low carbon economy. This is recognised as a key issue by the Financial Stability Board and our Index enables asset owners and managers to report against the framework which will be recommended to the G20.”
But he added: “It is shocking that many pension funds and insurers are still ignoring climate risk and gambling with the savings and financial security of millions of people. As the number of these laggards falls, their exposure to market repricing grows significantly higher and a time may be approaching when it is too late to avoid portfolio losses.”
Climate risk rose further up the investor agenda in 2016. The Paris Agreement came into force, with recognition that global financial flows must be aligned with the commitment to keep climate change below 2C. The Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), set up by the international Financial Stability Board, delivered recommendations which are due to be considered by the G20 in July. The world’s first law requiring investors to disclose climate risk came into force in France, providing a model for other countries.
The independent, non-profit AODP rates asset owners and managers on three capabilities which align with the key areas highlighted by the TCFD: Governance and Strategy; Portfolio Risk Management; and Metrics and Targets. It aims to provide an effective framework for them to meet and, ideally, exceed any climate disclosure guidelines endorsed by the G20. Institutions are graded from AAA-A-rated Leaders to D-rated institutions taking their first steps on climate risk. Those providing no evidence of action are rated X and classed as Laggards.
The report finds that although asset owners are making rapid progress, asset managers are ahead on a range of key activities:
90% of AMs incorporate climate change into their policy frameworks; 42% of AOs do this, almost twice as many as last year;
68% of AMs have staff focused on integrating climate risk into their investment; 18% of AOs have dedicated staff, a third more than last year);
20% of AMs calculate portfolio carbon emissions; 13% of AOs do this, up from 10% last year;
12% of AMs assess the risk of stranded assets in their portfolio; 6% of AOs do this, up from 5% last year.
Across the Index low carbon investment by asset owners has risen 68% to $203 billion, but still represents only 0.5% of total assets under management. Low carbon investments in the US doubled to $55 billion, 0.5% of country AUM, but the Netherlands’ $47 billion represents 3.1% of country AUM. If all countries matched the Netherlands’ record it would generate an additional $1.3 trillion of investment in the low carbon economy.
North America and Asia lag behind Europe and Australia on managing climate risk
Europe is the global leader on managing climate risk. Its 190 asset owners are worth $15.3 trillion and achieve an average CC rating. They include 20 of the 34 Leaders rated AAA-A. No asset owners are ignoring climate risk in the Netherlands, Scandinavia or Ireland while only 5% of institutions in the UK and 3% in France are Laggards. However, in Germany 68% of asset owners are Laggards, 17 smaller funds with $382 billion of investments. In Switzerland Laggards make up 29% of asset owners with $239 billion of investments, including $151 billion insurer Swiss Life.
Europe’s 19 asset managers achieve an average B rating, and they include the ten institutions with the highest ratings overall. The only asset manager to earn a AAA rating is the Netherlands’ $441 billion APG Asset Management. The $1,140 billion Legal & General Investment Management, rated AA, comes second, one of five UK asset managers in the top ten. Asset managers are concentrated in 10 global markets and the six highest rated are all European: Netherlands, Germany, UK, France, Switzerland and Italy.
North America lags furthest behind where asset owners average a D rating. The US is highly polarised: seven of its 183 asset owners (4%) are in the Leaders group but 115 are ignoring climate risk (63%, down only 4% from last year). These include the $458 billion Thrift Savings Plan and the $239 billion New York Life. However, in Canada the proportion of asset owners ignoring climate risk has nearly halved in a year, from 44% to 24%.
US asset managers account for 27 of the top 50 and manage $30.5 trillion, 70% of Index assets, but the average rating is also D. Blackrock, the world’s largest asset manager with $4,645 billion of assets under management, and Goldman Sachs ($1,252bn AUM) are rated C, while Vanguard ($3,500bn AUM) and State Street ($2,245bn AUM) are among 18 rated D. The only asset managers in the entire top 50 ignoring climate risk are Fidelity Investments ($2,060bn AUM), Affiliated Managers Group ($611bn AUM) and New York Life Investment Management ($528bn AUM).
Across Asia the average asset owner rating is D, although there are signs of progress. A quarter (26%) of Japan’s funds are Laggards with over $1 trillion of investments, but this has more than halved from 58% a year ago. They include insurers $493 billion Mitsui Mutual and $477 billion Zenkyoren. Japan’s two asset managers also rate D. Six of China’s nine asset owners are Laggards controlling $2.6 trillion, a position at odds with the country’s leadership on green finance within the G20 and its ambitious plans to invest in renewables, suggesting that there may be significant action that is not being disclosed.
Australia and New Zealand rival Europe. Australia’s $7 billion Local Government Super tops the Global Climate 500 Index, one of six institutions in the Leaders group, and overall its 29 asset owners achieve an average B rating. One of New Zealand’s two funds is also a Leader. However, Macquarie, the sole Australian institution among the top 50 asset managers, rates D. This is a cause for concern, given that it is set to acquire the UK’s Green Investment Bank.
Julian Poulter said: “Climate change is becoming a central part of risk management around the world, and will transcend short-term political setbacks such as moves by the Trump administration in the US to roll back action on climate change. Once investors adopt prudent risk management practices they will not unlearn them.”
Asset owners scaling up tangible action on climate risk
The Global Climate 500 Index reveals that institutions are rapidly scaling up their action on climate risk and achieving higher ratings. Seventeen asset managers now merit a top AAA-rating, up from 12 year ago. The overall Leader group rated AAA-A has risen to 34 from 31, with new members including TIAA, the $915 billion US pension/asset manager and AXA the $601 billion French insurance giant.
There are now 112 institutions worth $10.7 trillion rated C and above taking tangible action on climate change – 22% of the Index – up from 97 worth $9.4 trillion a year ago. The group of D-rated institution taking the first steps has grown to 187 from 157. The group of X-rated Laggards has shrunk from 246 to 201.
However, 23 asset managers managing $19.7 trillion of funds are taking tangible action on climate change with a rating of C or above, twice the proportion of asset owners. A further 24 asset managers with $20.6 trillion under management are rated D.
Sovereign wealth funds in China and oil states dominate the biggest asset owner Laggards, including the $814 billion China Investment Corporation, Saudi Arabia’s $654 billion SAMA Foreign Holdings, and the $592 billion Kuwait Investment Authority. With ambitious renewable energy targets in all these countries, there is hope that their institutions will follow the example set by the UAE which disclosed climate action for the first time this year.
Traditional authorities and elected leaders of the Uitoto, Muinane, Andoque and Nonuya peoples of the Middle Rio Caquetá region of the Colombian Amazon are in Bogotá between the 25th and 28th of April, 2017 to represent the peoples and Traditional Association of Indigenous Authorities – the Regional Indigenous Council of Middle Amazonas (CRIMA) in meetings with different State institutions and international agencies. In a message to the world, they self-identify themselves as the “People of the Centre” and heirs of the Green Territory of Life in the Amazon rainforest
Amazon indigenous people in Colombia having a meal
We are here to demand guarantees for our rights and to share concerns regarding forest, climate change and biodiversity projects that affect our territory, including the National Parks Department’s Heart of the Amazon Project supported by the World Bank and Global Environment Facility, and the Vision Amazonia Programme funded by the UK, Germany and Norway. We wish to express concerns that these programmes are undermining our principles of consent and participation and are applying processes that are not appropriate for our way of thinking and decision making.
Asserting our rights
Under our Law of Origin, and in accordance with our uses and customs, we have maintained a respectful relationship with our territory and the natural world. Before colonisation, our ancestors lived well. More than a century ago the cauchería came to exploit, enslave and displace our peoples, and almost exterminated us. We are the survivors of that genocide. We have since been reconstructing our society by building our malocas (ceremonial houses) and practising our ritual dances using the Word of Life and the wisdom of our elders. Since the 1970’s, our Cabildos (Councils) and Traditional Association of Indigenous Authorities have undertaken collective actions to legally securing our territory and to claim our rights.
Messages of the People of the Centre
To the Colombian government
We are not here to ask for projects. We want the national government to fully recognise our autonomy and our rights to govern our territory. We wish to see our applications for the extension of Reserves of Monochoa, Puerto Sábalo-Los Monos and Aduche properly processed and titled in favour of our communities to consolidate the Territory of Life belonging to the People of the Centre. In addition, we seek the formation and legal registration of an Indigenous Territorial Entity under our full jurisdiction in order to manage, administer and preserve our traditional territory and forests and maintain our way of life.
To international institutions
We inform the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, donor governments and cooperation agencies of Germany, the United Kingdom and Norway, that they must reach agreements directly with us, as our ancestors did. They did not talk to outsiders by means of third parties. We don’t want to have the interference of intermediaries such as NGOs and environmental funds: we seek a direct relationship between programmes, international donors and our traditional authorities. We demand that we are recognised and respected as environmental authorities in our own territory, with our own indigenous system of territorial ordering. We demand that the agencies respect our rights to own, manage and control our territory. To this end, we seek formal steps to develop and implement a Safeguard Plan for our peoples.
To the world
These demands are not just our concerns. Many other peoples in the Amazon and the world have similar claims and proposals for protecting peoples’ rights and sustaining the forests. When we say that we manage our territory and have our own government we are not talking about nature as an object or natural resource, but rather as a space with natural beings with whom we relate guided by our Word of Life and mutual respect. We want to let the world know what “territory” means to us. This week we will share the teachings of the Muinane people about our care of territory. The Uitoto, Andoque and Nonuya peoples have been working in the same direction in documenting our ways of managing and preserving the rainforests. We want to invite all the Peoples of the Centre, America and other parts of the world to join us in this effort to defend life and territory.
