UK based Shell is facing fresh environmental claims in the London High Court from two Nigerian communities who have suffered following repeated large scale oil spills from the energy giant’s pipelines in the Niger Delta

The High Court in London, UK began to hear arguments during a four-day hearing that started on Monay, 21st November 2016 on whether the English Courts can hear two legal claims on behalf of over 40,000 Nigerians against Royal Dutch Shell (RDS) and its Nigerian subsidiary, Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC), for extensive environmental damage caused by oil pollution to two separate communities in the Niger Delta.

The first claim is being brought on behalf of 2,335 individuals from the Bille Kingdom of Nigeria who are mostly fishermen who claim their environment has been devastated by oil spills over the past five years.

The second claim is brought on behalf of the Ogale Community in Ogoniland which consists of roughly 40,000 people. The community has been subjected to repeated oil spills from Shell’s pipelines over a number of years which have still not been cleaned up.

The appalling levels of pollution the Ogale community was carefully documented by the United Nations Environment Programme in their 2011 report.

In March 2016, the Technology and Construction Court agreed that the two legal cases could proceed to the next stage through the London High Court, where the parent company, Royal Dutch Shell plc, is based.

Lawyers for the Nigerians communities argue that Royal Dutch Shell, who has its headquarters in the UK, controls and directs it’s Nigerian subsidiary and should ensure that its operations do not systematically pollute the environment.

Both Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Nigeria argue that the cases should be heard in Nigeria and not in the English Courts.

The two separate legal actions are being brought by law firm Leigh Day who represented the Bodo Community against Shell in an unprecedented environmental claim resulting in Shell agreeing to pay compensation package of £55 million to the Community and 15,600 Nigerian fishermen whose livelihoods had been destroyed by Shell’s oil pollution.  However, hundreds of Niger Delta communities remain blighted by oil pollution.

Daniel Leader, partner in the International Group Claims team at Leigh Day, said: “Oil spills from Shell’s oil pipelines have blighted the lives of the thousands of Nigerians who live in Ogale and Bille. It is scandalous that five years after the UNEP Report Shell is yet to clean up its own oil in either Ogale or Bille.

“It is clear to the Claimants that Royal Dutch Shell is ultimately responsible for failing to ensure that its’ Nigerian subsidiary operates without causing environmental devastation.  It is time for Shell to clean up their act in Nigeria. At the moment these communities have no choice – they have to take them to court to get them to act.”

Background

Ogale Community and the UNEP Report

Ogale is located in the Nchia administrative region of Eleme LGA, Rivers State in Nigeria and has an estimated population of over 40,000. The people of Ogale have traditionally been either crop farmers or fishermen who rely on Ogale’s tributaries and waterways as fishing areas.

However, Ogale has been subjected to repeated oil spillages across much of the community since at least 1989. At one spill site at Okuluebu, it is estimated that there were 87,500 barrels of oil remaining at the site when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) conducted investigations in 2010.

The Ogale Pipelines and Infrastructure are said to be several decades old and in a poor state of repair making the area vulnerable to oil spills which have caused, and continue to cause, long-term contamination of the land, swamps, groundwater and waterways in the Community.

In 2011, UNEP published an Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland which included extensive testing of the Ogale Community. The UNEP Report found that oil spills in Ogoniland happen “with alarming regularity” and that “it is a fair assumption that most members of the current Ogoniland community have lived with chronic oil pollution throughout their lives”.

UNEP’s testing of Ogale reported serious contamination of agricultural land and waterways in the community as well as its groundwater, exposing Ogale’s inhabitants to potential health risks. Groundwater oil contamination in Ogale was found to be 1,000 times higher than levels permitted under Nigerian law and water in the community was found to be unfit for human consumption.

UNEP’s recommendations included:

• Emergency measures to provide adequate sources of drinking water to impacted households;
• Immediate steps to prevent existing contaminated sites from causing further pollution and;
• A substantial programme of clean up and decontamination of impacted sites.

At the time, Shell stated it accepted the findings and the recommendations of the UNEP Report. However, five years later, Shell appears to have failed to comply with the recommendations of the UNEP Report and to clean up the sites polluted by their own oil.

The Ogale Community continues to live with chronic levels of land and water pollution. In November 2015, Amnesty International published a report entitled “Clean It Up”, following field research in Ogale and other communities.

It concludes that Shell has failed to clean up damage caused by oil spills in Ogale in line with the recommendations of the UNEP report.

Amnesty also found that Shell had also failed to clean up three other sites which were the subject of the UNEP report. The mommunity reports that the oil contamination continues to impact on their farming and fishing has all but ended in the community.

Residents report that while a drinking water system has been installed by the Government, the provision of water is patchy and it does not extend to all polluted areas, despite the UNEP report identifying the lack of clean drinking water in Ogale as being an urgent problem.

Despite repeated requests from the leaders of Ogale, Shell is said to have refused to meet with them to try agreeing a clean-up and compensation programme. The community members are now claiming for compensation and seeking to get Shell to clean up the damage caused by their oil.

HRH Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi, the Paramount Ruler of Ogale, said: “Shell has polluted our land and our streams and drinking wells for years. Even when the UNEP report suggested that something urgent should be done, Shell did not even come to see our community or to talk to us. No-one is listening to us, no-one cares. We hope at last this case will force Shell clean up at long last.”

Bille Community

Bille is located in the Degema Local Government Area (LGA) in River State, Nigeria. Populated by nearly 13,000 residents, it is comprised of a number of island towns and fishing settlements that are surrounded entirely by water.

Residents of Bille have traditionally relied on fishing to sustain their way of life, however, following the devastation caused by the spills emanating from an oil pipeline known as the “Nembe Creek 30” Trunkline (NCTL) their livelihood has been destroyed.

Due to the proximity of buildings to the waterfront, most properties on Bille have been damaged by the pollution and residents have even been forced to stack sandbags outside their homes to try to prevent oil entering their properties.

The NCTL stretches for almost 100 kilometres and was built in 1981 and although money was recently spent to replace it, Shell allegedly failed to install leak detection systems to prevent and detect operational spills and/or protect against third party interference, known as bunkering, in breach of Nigerian legal standards.

According to the legal action, the creeks, mangroves and island communities in Bille have been devastated by oil emanating from the NCTL since the replacement of the Bille Section of the pipeline in 2010.  It is alleged that 13,200 hectares of mangrove have been damaged by oil spilled from the Bille Pipelines and Infrastructure, the largest loss of mangrove habitat in the history of oil spills.

The key issue in the claim will be whether Shell can be liable for failing to protect their pipelines from damage caused by third parties. In the judgment handed down in the Bodo litigation, the Court ruled that where it can be shown that Shell neglected to protect their pipelines properly, they could be liable for the damage arising from their neglect.

Courtesy: Leigh Day

Despite not being included in the league of Least Developed Countries (LDCs), the widely held view is that Nigeria may perhaps need as much international support, if not more, as the LDCs member nations, because of the security and other socio-economic issues it faces that are akin to those of the LDCs.

For more than a decade, Africa’s giant has been battling serious insecurity issues caused by the activities of the Boko Haram Islamic terrorist group, allegedly recruiting locals of neighbouring countries, impoverished by rapidly encroaching desert, drought, famine and other climate-induced disasters.

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment, Mrs Oluremi Tinubu, who was part of the Nigerian delegation to the UN climate change conference (COP22) in Marrakech, Morocco, confirmed the threat the country faces by sharing borders with nations in distress.

“Climate change is not something that is visible but the impact is what we see. In Nigeria, it is affecting us in all fronts. If we had managed the desertification threatening the northerners, cattle rustling and a lot of things and also Boko Haram would not be the issue. And we can learn that when people livelihood is threatened, they can do the unimaginable. It’s like what we are seeing or confronting us and we are trying to get what doesn’t belong to us by force. If you have seen the movie called “Nowhere to run”, and that’s why every body has to see what is going on. So, where are we going to run to? And Nigeria with our population, who is going to house us if somethng happens? That’s the most reason that we have to look at ways of combating them,” she told a team of local and foreign journalists in an interview shortly after the Nigerian delegation unveiled its road map for implementing its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) at the summit.

That Nigeria’s sustainable development is under threat due to undue influence of distressed neighbouring African nations, who form part of worlds least developed countries, has been a topical issue, which has also been widely reported.

For instance, a recent BBC report revealed that locals from nearby countries were induced with money to join the Boko Haram terrorist group to attack Nigeria and its territories.

One of the recruited members reportedly told the BBC: “We only do it for the money. Regularly, they come across the border, looking for recruits. They have paid Nigerian naira ($3,085, £1,835) to those of us who followed them over there. When they come, we inform them about what’s going on, what the security forces are up to. We have no jobs; some of us are still at high school, but we need money. Violence has become a form of work for us.”

Nigeria’s current population based on United Nations estimates is 188,750,850 which is equivalent to 2.48% of the total world population.

Analysts feel the figure grows by the day due to the large illegal migration of foreigners especially from the desert ravaged Sahara and Sahel regions bordering northern Nigeria, the stronghold of Boko Haram activities.

This large human intrusion into Nigeria mounts serious and undue stress on the country’s fragile infrastructure and well being, it was gathered.

Now, one of the major objectives of COP22 was to rally assistance in support of LDCs and as part of the road-map for implementation, LDC Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Initiative (REEEI) for Sustainable Development, was launched on November, 17, 2016, a day to the end of the COP.

The LDCs represent the world’s 48 poorest nations, including Niger, Mali, Togo and Benin, which are Nigeria’s direct and close neighbours.

During the launch of the REEEI, at the Press Conference Room Rabat in the Blue Zone of the COP22 arena, Mr. Tosi Mpanu-Mpanu, Chair of the Least Developed Countries Group and Head of delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, said: “The initiative will enable LDCs to leapfrog fossil fuel-based energy and light up the lives of millions of energy-starved people through modern, clean and resilient energy systems. The LDC REEEI is an important part of this process emerging from the Marrakech climate conference, providing concrete action to address climate change while empowering the world’s most vulnerable communities to build a path to sustainable development.”

On his part, Mr. Ram Prasad Dhital, Executive Director of Alternative Energy Promotion Centre, Ministry of Population and Environment, Nepal, said: “This initiative would support LDCs to develop the capacity to put in place the policies, regulations and project pipelines needed for greater flows of energy finance.”

It is argued that the provision of effective power to the LDC within the framework of the REEEI, if effective, would go a long way in easing huge burden off Nigeria, because locals from some of the LDC nations who usually run to Nigeria for refuge, would have good reason to remain in their lands.

But, on the other hand, they believe great support is also needed to assist Nigeria rebuild itself from the loss it has suffered and continues to suffer in the hands of the defendant climate-ravaged tiny neighbouring countries.

One of the most pressing goals of Nigeria which it seeks support to address, is saving the rapidly drying-up Lake Chad on its border with Chad Republic which is a key initiative for adaptation.

Lake Chad serves both Nigeria and others neighbouring countries in fishing and agriculture, but its drying up has led to loss of livelihood with attendant consequences including migration, severe poverty and malnutrition, as well as insecurity.

In a booklet distributed at the COP22, the Federal Government of Nigeria says it needs well about $142 billion to fund its NDC which it has mainstreamed into the country’s sustainable development efforts.

President Mohammadu Buhari who was represented by the Minister of Environment, Amina Mohammed, during the Africa Day event at the COP on Wednesday, 16th November, 2016, said the country would launch a Sovereign Green Bond to raise funds for implementing its NDC.

But that won’t go far in solving the enormous problem at hand, thus Nigeria needs huge external fund to reduce greenhouse emission and plan adaptation projects to protect its huge human population from climate change impacts.

“One of the main objectives for delegates (delegates to COP22) is to seek partnerships and support, technical, technology and financial to implement our NDC, estimated to cost $142 billion but yield estimated national benefits of $304 billion(World Bank, 2013). Delegates are strongly encouraged to identify specific projects, programmes and initiatives for support which can be shared with potential partners in discussions at COP22,” says the FG in the COP22 booklet.

According to the FG, “we recognise that Nigeria is one of the most climate vulnerable countries in the world. By 2050, it could cost between 6 percent and 30 percent of our GDP ($100-$460 billion).

“Our population is acutely aware of the risk; the 2012 floods which killed 363 people and displaced more than 2.1 million, the impact on 70 % of Nigerians who rely on rain-fed agriculture, and regional conflicts driven by a shrinking Lake Chad and desertification, are at the top of our minds.

“Despite the challenging time for our economy, the government has continued to prioritise mitigation and adaptation to climate change through the five pillars of the national change agenda, namely power, oil and gas, agriculture, transport and industry. Diversification, especially towards sustainable agriculture, is already a key part of our country’s economic strategy, along with low-carbon power and improving the efficiency of the oil and gas sector.”

President Mohammadu Buhari on September 22nd this year signed the Paris Climate agreement, signifying Nigeria’s support to the global treaty that was the brain child of last climate change conference in Paris, France, known as COP21.

The country has mainstreamed the implementation of the NDC and Paris Agreement into its sustainable development, and would be using aggressive legislation to address the goals, so remarked the Environment Minister who represented the President while unveiling the country’s NDC implementation road-map at the Africa Day event.

“Nigeria submitted its ambitious Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). We have now pledged a 20% reduction greenhouse emission by 2020 and 45 conditional commitments which can be achieved with financial assistance, partnerships, technology transfer and building capacities. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is an integral part of Nigeria’s development and the mission of the Nigerian government through the INDCs is fully in line with them.

“We are focusing on reducing poverty, food security, creating jobs by diversifying the economy, providing a healthy environment and most importantly driving economic development by providing access to energy for our people. This COP22 is the cop of NDC implementation. We have this very much on our minds when our delegations left Paris last year.

“In spite of the global downtown which has affected us domestically, we are committing a reasonable part of our 2017 capital budget to this effort. 2017 capital budget would be a green budget that would reflect Nigeria’s effort to realising our NDC. In addition, we are set to launch our first ever Sovereign Green Bond in the first quarter of 2017. This is intended to fund the series of projects targeted at reducing emission and greening our economy as embedded in our NDC. We are working diligently to strengthen our MRD system as this will help to achieve increase in transparency and accountability that is needed across all sectors and all levels of government.

“On the issue of renewable, our priority is to achieve, energy access, energy security and develop renewable resources for energy. We are strengthening policy in regulatory base. In this regard, we have developed a system of energy for all action agenda and national renewable energy action plan, among other policies. Our expectation is that 30% of this capacity would come from renewable energy. On NDC implementation, for the power sector, we would build on this progress. We will include clear mitigation and adaptation priorities which would also be the basis for budget proposal to attract innovative international climate finance,” she said.

Apart from saving the Lake Chad to make adaptation possible for Nigeria and its neighbours, who are among Least developed countries, addressing power issues, bad roads, and a whole lot others are some of the pressing goals of the Nigerian government, in the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

On the issue of power, Nigeria is among beneficiaries of the Africa Renewable Energy Initiative (AREI), which seeks to power up Africa by delivering 10 Gigawatts of electricity by 2020 and 300 Giga watts by 2030 in the African continent, important to drive development in the black continent.

However, considering its large population and the many challenges the country battle with, the funding for the project may not make meaningful impact on the Africa’s giant, who has been struggling to liberate its economy from recession, caused by flat fall in oil price.

Nigeria is a mono-economic nation, deriving about 90% of its foreign exchange from oil, which has lost viability.

Addressing the African Union Commission delegates on the realisation of the AREI, the President African Development Bank, Akinwunmi Adesina, who announced that his bank has committed itself to invest $12 billion to the initiative over the next five years, said redemption of pledges and making of more pledges were required from developed countries to realise the “lightening up Africa” project through renewable energy sources.

“Africa cannot develop in the dark. Just take a look at how lack of electricity drags down Africa’s growth and development. For decades, Africa has continued to export raw materials as it does to the subject of global commodity price shock as we are already witnessing. Africa does not have electricity. Lack of access to power has pushed Africa down to the bottom of global value chains.

“Africa must power itself to add value to what it produces, speed up industrialisation and move to the top of global value chain. This must start with unlocking the huge potentials of energy on the continent including Africa’s vast potentials in renewable energy as well as no renewable energy. Africa simply needs energy period,” said Adesina.

Analysts say the remark by Adesina applies perfectly to Nigeria’s current situation, believing that efforts by the UNFCCC COP in addressing the plights of developing countries and even least developed countries would make greater impact if special attention is given to Nigeria, which plays fatherly role to some of the so-called poor countries, and suffering huge loss in the process.

By Innocent Onoh

With the gradual return of the dry season otherwise known as harmattan in Makurdi, the capital of Benue State, there is a steady return of mobile water vendors popularly known as “mai ruwa”. This is occasioned by the steady drop in water level of wells and limited rainfall, which have become the residents’ major source of water as pipe borne water is only available in some homes in few areas of the town.

Makurdi, which is located in North-Central Nigeria, has an estimated population of over three million. But, with one of the major rivers in the country, River Benue, running through it, it has become a typical example of the proverbial story of “living on a river bank but washing ones hands with spittle”.

Although successive administrations in the state from 1999 to date have tried to address the problem of potable water production, supply and distribution through the Benue State Water Board in the form of the Greater Makurdi Water Works, it has been a futile attempt.

With the shortfall in provision of potable water to the ever increasing population and layouts in Makurdi, the services of mai ruwa come in handy as the water vendors buy water in 20 litres jerry cans and hawk to residents in the town at usually N25 per jerry can.

With the return of the raining season, most of these water peddlers who are all from the Northern part of Nigeria make a return to their various states to engage in farming activities as the demand for water drops drastically. However, now that the harmattan has crept back, they are back in their droves and business is starting to gradually pick up tempo as they serve residents of Makurdi where they cannot access potable water as a public utility.

In a chat with this writer, a water vendor who hails from Yobe State and spoke in Hausa, Musa Bello, stated that he has been in the business for about two years in the state and it helps him meet up with basic needs.

According to him, he left Makurdi for Yobe during the farming season to work on his farm and spend time with his family, adding that he is back now that the dry season is setting in so as to continue with his business.

Another mai ruwa, Buka Sani, who also returned from farming in his home state of Kebbi, said he would continue shuttling between Makurdi and Kebbi as the seasons change, in order to make the best out of both the raining season and dry season for farming and hawking water respectively.

Sani expressed hope for brisk business this season as the taps are still not running with water and more people have sunk boreholes where they can buy water and peddle to residents.

It will be recalled that in 2001, the then governor, George Akume, awarded the $26.4 million worth Greater Makurdi Water Works contract to Biwater Company to build a water treatment facility with a capacity of 45,000 cubic meters per day. But, unfortunately, with over $6.2 million expended by the end of his two-term tenure in 2003, it wasn’t still eureka for Makurdi residents in accessing potable water.

Subsequently, the Governor Gabriel Suswam led administration revoked the contract and re-awarded it to Gilmor Nigeria Limited and, in March 2003, the then president, Goodluck Jonathan, commissioned the $42 million 50,000 cubic metres daily capacity waterworks, with a potential to be extended to 100,000 cubic metres. The action raised hope for the over 600,000 residents of Makurdi that they would have unhindered access to potable water. However, the situation did not change; reason being that although the government said the project was almost completed, the second aspect of the project which involved reticulation to link pipelines to homes in the town, weighed down the completion of the project.

It is worthy of note that the existing water pipelines which serve a few homes are those that were laid in 1978 and are either rusted, burst beyond repair or are obsolete in many areas and whenever water is pumped from the Water Board, water is wasted at broken points thereby becoming Non Revenue Water (NRW).

So to say, the need for reticulation to take place in Makurdi before any proper potable water supply can be achieved cannot be overemphasised, considering that the metropolis has grown beyond the former setting of Wadata, High-Level, GRA, Wurukum, North Bank, etc with new layouts such as Nyiman Layout, Welfare Quarters, Owner Occupier Estate, Makurdi International Market, Agber Village, Tionsha, and Agboughl, to name but a few.

From the foregoing, the town has grown and even as the state is believed to have spent over N5 billion during the past administration in the area of potable water provision with the construction of the Greater Makurdi Water Works and water plants in the other two geopolitical zones (Zone A and Zone C) of the state, little wonder the Country Director for Water Aid, Dr. Michael Ojo, last year revealed that only 45 percent of the state had access to potable water, with just three percent of this figure having access to government provided potable water.

The situation is appalling so much that the Governor Samuel Ortom too, while inspecting the Greater Makurdi Water Works, berated the lack of potable water in the state when he stated that the people of the state had waited too long for public water supply. “A lot of money has been spent on this water project and there has to be justification for such spending. Our people deserve to feel the impact of this project. They can’t wait any longer,” he added.

The question therefore now is; with the current biting economic times and recession which has affected even the payment of civil servants’ wages, where and how can the state government access money to fully reticulate the Greater Makurdi Works for it to provide potable water according to its capacity and projection of 35 years viability?

By Damian Daga

United States Special Envoy for Climate Change, Dr. Jonathan Pershing, at a media session during the two-week UN climate change talks (COP22) that ended on Friday in Marrakech, Morocco, sheds some light on progress the U.S. made so far at the COP, as well as efforts to address challenges posed by climate change

Dr. Jonathan Pershing: Thanks to all of you, too, for joining us today. We’ve had quite a successful week here at COP22 since I last talked with you, both inside and outside of the negotiating rooms, and it has helped demonstrate how Paris has set us on an irreversible trajectory toward low-emissions, resilient, climate-resilient growth.

Secretary Kerry joined us here yesterday, when he hosted, first, a meeting of the ministers of the major economies, a forum on energy and climate, where he discussed implementation of the Paris Agreement, and how the group of major economies, which represents more than 70% of global emissions, can continue to lead on climate action. The discussion was very positive. We heard, across the board, the high priority that the major economies put on climate action at home, and that they are moving ahead with the implementation of their Paris pledges.

As you know, Secretary Kerry also made a speech here at the COP highlighting the growing impacts of climate change, and the significant momentum we are seeing in every corner of the world, from governments, civil society, investors, business, and entrepreneurs. He emphasised that we are confident this movement will continue, not only because the impacts are more and more damaging, and clearer and clearer, but because the clean energy transition presents opportunities for economic growth, for job creation, and for sustaining healthier and more prosperous communities.

The United States released yesterday a mid-century report on long-term low-emission strategies. We unveiled it in tandem with Mexico, and with Canada. I hope you have a chance to review the report. It was a product of months of research and consideration. As outlined by a senior adviser to the President, Brian Deese, the mid-century document doesn’t represent a new target, or a particular set of policy prescriptions, but rather it’s an analytical exercise to explore the various ways in which the United States might decarbonise, might broadly decarbonise major sectors of our economy by 2050, and beyond. At this point in the formal meetings, parties have completed nearly all of the technical work planned for Marrakech. We’re quite pleased with the progress we’ve made so far. Among other things, we were able to adopt a robust work plan that will enable us to flesh out the transparency framework that forms the bedrock of the Paris Agreement. Countries announced more than $60 million for an initiative on capacity building for transparency, so-called CBIT, or C-B-I-T, assuring that all countries can implement their obligations to report. We’ve been working on a Marrakech Proclamation to reaffirm our collective global climate commitment, and re-emphasise the need for urgent action. There have also been a series of important ministerial conversations, on issues ranging from finance, where we discussed ways to leverage private investment, as well as transitioning to a clean and low-carbon economy, and address issues related to minimising climate risks.

The remaining discussions are largely procedural, and are expected to focus on reaching a common understanding about how best to accelerate our collective work to implement the Paris Agreement. But we’ve also had a series of truly impressive activities taking place in and around the COP to mobilise business, the finance sector, sub-national governments, and other climate leaders.

For example, this year, Finland and The Netherlands joined the Mission Innovation countries, 20 nations already committed to doubling public clean energy research and development by 2021, an initiative launched by the United States last year in Paris. Nearly three dozen governments, companies, and civil society organisations came together around the Marrakech Declaration for Sustainable Development of the Oil Palm Sector in Africa to help transition that community to a sustainable driver of low-carbon development.

RE100, a coalition of major companies, committed to using 100% renewable electricity for all of their operations has already attracted over 83 companies, ranging from Philips Lighting, to Microsoft, to India’s Dalmia cement company. These are just a few examples, but the overall trajectory is undeniable.

And of course, action outside the process entirely by companies is increasing. As an example, Wal-Mart made an announcement at the beginning of the month on a range of sustainability goals that will impact its whole supply chain. 50% renewable energy, zero net deforestation in key commodities, these are major and significant statements. Companies are taking the risks related to climate change more seriously. Those that do so are more than likely to out-perform their competitors. For example, companies in the Climate Leadership Index out-performed The Bloomberg World Index by over 9%. Those companies acting on these principles are doing better than those that are not.

Investors are increasingly interested in green bonds. Despite being in the early stage of development, the green bond market has been growing by leaps and bounds. Annual green bond issuances in 2015 were 17 times higher than just three years ago, with over $40 billion issued this year alone. In addition, investors are increasingly disclosing whether their strategies are consistent with Paris, and long-term investment in low-carbon projects are beginning to promote global financial stability, as the Financial Stability Board, for example, works to generate recommendations for the G20 countries on how to improve disclosure of climate-related risk in financial markets.

So this COP is about much more than negotiations. It’s an important signpost on the pathway to a low-emission, climate-resilient economy, and the world is accelerating on that pathway.

Thank you and I’m happy to take questions.

Question: Hi, my name is Ashley Braun. I work with the publication, DeSmog in the US, and, considering native Alaskans and other Native Americans are so vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and fossil fuel infrastructure projects, such as the Dakota Access oil pipeline in North Dakota, if, and how, has the US delegation consulted with the Native American tribes to engage them and their concerns over climate change impacts, adaptation, and other priorities in the COP negotiations? Thank you.

Question: Hi, Jonathan, Dean Scott, Bloomberg BNA. My question goes to loss and damage. I’m wondering, since you’ll be sort of freed from this process in the not-too-distant future, if you could kind of lay out where you see that process going in terms of providing some of the funding and financial mechanisms for loss and damage, consistent with what was decided in Paris in terms of staying away from liability and compensation?

Question: Thanks very much. Alister Doyle, from Reuters. I seem to remember that several years ago; you gave a speech where you mentioned that the only developed countries that had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol were San Marino and the United States. How is it this time around if Donald Trump carries out his threat to pull out, that the United States will be in a group with Nicaragua, which was the only country last year to stand outside the Paris Agreement? What does that show? Thank you.

Dr. Jonathan Pershing: So thanks very much for these questions. With regard to the native communities, we have sought to have quite a wide range of briefings, both in the US delegation and prior to arrival here in Washington. We didn’t have a separate discussion just with the Native American communities, we’ve had discussions with civil society quite broadly, divided up into multiple kinds of groups, environmental organisations, faith-based organisations, cities, state and locality organisations, to which they’ve been invited, and a number have, in fact, come to some of those discussions. In our view, an inclusive process is going to be quite important, not just for the United States, but for all nations. As we look to implement the agenda, it’s only going to take hold, to take root, if there’s a sense that it matters at the community level as well as in civil society, so for us that sense of transparency is really quite essential.

With regard to the question on loss and damage, at the moment the conversation here has been about a review of the process, and we are very close, in fact we are just about reaching agreement on the form of that. There will be – final discussions are underway. We anticipate that this first review will, in fact, be completed here at the meeting. That was the call a couple of years ago in the formal decisions, prior – it was actually done in Lima – so prior to this, the Warsaw Implementation mechanism discussion, that looks like it’s on track.

But the larger question you’re asking is really one about what kind of financing might be required for considering the loss and damage questions. I think countries around the world are, in fact, grappling with that. There are real damages associated with climate change. We recognise those. The community, as a whole, recognises those. One thing that Secretary Kerry talked about from his trip to Antarctica is the potential for substantial sea level rise, a level of increase that could vastly overwhelm shore defenses, particularly in low-lying island states. This kind of conversation is going to get bigger from here. It’s going to be a bigger issue. We’re going to have to deal with it more specifically, and this is the beginning of a longer-term discussion. That’s the purpose of the review and the next step in the conversation.

With regard to the Reuters question on the Kyoto Protocol, I would note that I would not be too hasty here. We don’t know what the outcome’s going to be. The administration doesn’t exist yet, it hasn’t made its decisions about what it intends to do. I don’t think it’s our purpose here to speculate on the outcome. But at the same time, I would say that we recognise here, and the affirmation in the Marrakech Proclamation made clear the collective vision that this is a priority for nations around the world. We don’t believe that the United States would have it in its interest not to be party to this. We believe it’s deeply in our interest. We believe there are opportunities here to be seized. We believe there is a responsibility to be taken and we look forward to engaging – and I, as a citizen, look forward to engaging after I complete my term with the administration.

Question: Amy Harder with the Wall Street Journal. Thanks for doing this briefing. Two quick questions: First, what kind of concrete deliverables do you anticipate the conference is going to be able to announce at the conclusion, and second, have you had any – you, and or your staff – any contact yet with the Trump transition team? Thank you.

Question: Marlowe Hood with Agence France Presse. How important is the mid-century strategy and what do we need and expect to hear from China and India, which I know are also making similar efforts?

Question: Hi, Ed King from Climate Home. You were involved in the first ever climate summit. I think it was in Chantilly, just outside Washington, D.C. Can you just give us a sense of how the rhetoric, ambition has changed in those past 26 years, or so? Where will the process be when you leave it compared to when you joined it?

Dr. Jonathan Pershing: Thanks very much for those questions. With regard to concrete deliverables, they will take several forms. In one domain, there are a series of decisions around procedural activities, for example, we’ve begun the exercise to develop guidelines for national reporting and for transparency. The timetable for those will be set out in some detail and the call for countries to make submissions and what key issues will be the focus of those. How do you think about reporting frequency? What are the areas of input to make sure that the transparency is sufficient to identify progress against meeting nationally-determined contributions? What kinds of programmatic information do you need to understand emissions trajectories going forward as well as retrospectively? That kind of detail will be contained in decisions, but we’ve got another year or so of work to do, so this is a phased process.

There will be decisions of a second sort. Those are ones that are more in the form of political declarations. The Marrakech Proclamation is one such. It will talk of the ministerial commitment, the re-affirmation of Paris, and the commitment to move forward with a degree of urgency on next steps. But that will be supplemented by a series of outcomes that are not as specific, but perhaps as important. Those are the conclusions reached in the variety of individual focused sessions. Things, for example, about finance, about leveraging private investment, questions about transitions and how you think about diversifying economies, including those that are particularly reliant on fossil fuels, the Saudi Arabias, the OPEC nations, but those also in coal, or in natural gas. There will be a series of discussions that will come out, conclusions on what we think of adaptation, and the impacts there. Some discussions on forests – how are those being leveraged by ministers around the world to drive those sectors forward? So that’s the second bucket.

The third – and I would argue even more important still – are the commitments made by individual players and groups, sometimes in the form of governments, sometimes in the form of private sector actors. I mentioned a few. One of the things we’ve got now is a commitment that Brazil worked on for sustainable biofuels. A host of countries stood up. One I just came from, just about a half an hour ago, run by the French and others, the two co-champions of our process, France and Morocco, looking at mid-century strategies and the platform to work jointly to further develop such strategies. So a whole host of these in the public domain, and then in the private domain. Announcements from companies seeking to move on renewables, from companies seeking to move on electric vehicles, on programmes for efficiency, on buildings. These are coming out, and are being made at this session, and reflect a level of global political will for action. All of that will be the framework for the successes here.

With regard to the mid-century strategies, these are really quite significant. In our thinking, and the reason that we released ours yesterday at this meeting, was to try to begin this next dialogue on how you think about this – not only in the context of 2025, or 2030, but in the long run. We know we need to do better. The numbers that we have set for ourselves, the Paris Agreement, calls for striving for 2 degrees, and the effort to 1.5 is part of the deal. How do you do that?

We know it is going to be an iterative exercise. So you have to work from both sides. One,  you start with your nationally determined contributions. You see what the implementation looks like. You think about how you can go beyond those moving forward, and two, you look out as to where you would like to be. We would like to be – at a 2050 horizon of the United States – at least at an 80% reduction in emissions. What does that mean? What are the kinds of trajectories you might look at? How do you think about the energy sector, or the land use sector, or industrial activities, or transportation? What kinds of reduction opportunities are there? Those questions will, in turn, inform the research agenda. They’ll inform the thinking about policy, and we’d like to exchange views with others as to how to do that effectively. It won’t be an answer that will hold permanently. It’ll be an answer to guide thinking and give you a robust option moving forward.

India and China have both indicated their intent to work on similar kinds of strategies. I anticipate that this next year we’ll see a variety of other countries stepping forward as well. In the side event that was run just now by France and Morocco, we had about 25 countries standing up and indicating their intent to proceed.

With regard to the issue of Chantilly and where we are now since 1990, when we began, it was a very different meeting. It was a tiny session. It was held just outside of Washington, D.C. A republican president actually offered to host that session. George Bush – the first George Bush – put down on his calendar and came to the United Nations General Assembly in 1990, and we hosted the first meeting in February, 1991. That was the beginning of the negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change. A convention that was passed and signed by a republican administration, and the Congress of the time. We’ve been in it for that duration, and it’s made significant progress. But since then, there’s been a recognition about the increasing severity and urgency of the problem, and we’ve moved forward from a small meeting of only about 1,000 people to a meeting in which we have heads of state from virtually every nation in the world coming to a discussion and addressing their intent to proceed in the solution space, to think both about the management of mitigation and the minimisation of the impacts. This is no longer a problem that may be 20 or 30 years out. This is a problem that people are recognising today, and that’s the big change. We have a degree of urgency, a sense of importance of action that didn’t exist then, that now underpins the action that we see at this session, and we expect to see going forward.

Question: Thank you. Challenge Magazine. Please, there is no translation, excuse my English. The United States chooses 2005 as a reference year to reduce their emissions. That year saw an emissions peak of 5.8 billion tons equivalent CO2. Is it to make believe a more significant commitment that the country chooses this year when it emitted a lot of greenhouse gas.

Question: Jean Chemnick: And I’m Jean Chemnick from E&E News, and I was wondering – I know you don’t want to speculate on what the next administration does – but if the US is no longer party to the agreement and China remains in the agreement, is there a competitive advantage that China gains that might spill over into other negotiating fora, other issues besides climate change? What are your thoughts?

Question: Thank you very much for a very enlightening presentation. Elisabeth Holland from the University of the South Pacific, the home of those low-lying islands. We’re a regional university representing 12 Pacific Island nations and I wonder what the US commitment is to helping those low-lying nations in light of Secretary of State Kerry’s comments on low-lying, on sea-level rise and those low-lying nations?

Dr. Jonathan Pershing: Thank you very much for those questions. With regard to the first one, actually, your English is excellent. I wish I spoke another language as well as you do English. I think that there are a couple of different points to make. The first is that we took a number before our administration, but recent enough in the previous history that we had good data, and we are holding ourselves accountable to that timeline and emission reductions we could take since that time. We’ve been reasonably successful. We’ve seen a significant decline in US emissions already since 2005, and we believe that we are on a good trajectory to meet our targets both in 2020 and we think also in 2025.

One of the comments that I made from the podium earlier today in my speech to the entire plenary session was that we believe that we are on track to meet those commitments, and I believe that completely. I think the policies and the programs we’ve put into place which are supplemented by, frankly, market conditions that lead to re-invigorated investments in renewables, efficiency, as well as natural gas, have fundamentally altered the United States’ trajectory and in that sense, no new policies, probably, are still needed to keep us on that pathway for some time, so I think we’re in a good place. 2005; however, was given as a framework for our administration to hold ourselves in some reasonable timeline.

Jean, with regard to your question on China, I think it remains to be seen what happens in a new administration, so I don’t want to go there, but at the same time I think we can see an enormous opportunity and market potential going forward. And that doesn’t apply to China and the United States separately. It applies to everyone.

I had an interesting discussion with the Israelis. They have some of the best technology in the world for desalination and for irrigation technologies to manage drought. I had a very interesting discussion with Morocco. They’ve got the world’s largest concentrating solar facility and it’s only been in place for a couple of years. I had an interesting discussion with my colleagues from the United Arab Emirates, who recently had an auction to look at what they could buy renewable energy for, and they now have the world’s lowest price two point four cents  per kWh. They actually had the previous lowest price as well, only a couple of months ago, it was two point nine cents. It’s coming down precipitously, and this is something which the entire world benefits from. I can’t imagine a scenario in which US companies are not in that game, not playing in the context of the global marketplace which has huge upside growth opportunity, and I think our companies will succeed in that new marketplace.

With regard to the question on the island states, where the United States is on this, there are a number of different components to the response.

The first one is that we have committed our term to try to minimise the problem. We’ve sought to take actions in the immediate term and looking out forward,-  that was our mid-century strategy –  to address how we can radically reduce emissions, how we can bring them down in the near-term, 26-28%, how we can bring them down in the medium- and longer-term, we’re looking at an 80% reduction in 2050, that was the MCS – the mid-century strategy work – so that’s one piece.

We’ve worked under the context of the Paris Agreement to bring all countries on board. The United States is currently responsible for much less than 20% of global emissions. We’re the second-largest, but nonetheless, by ourselves, we cannot solve the problem, so we chose a pathway of engagement as a global matter, to have all countries participate, and I think you can see from this meeting that we, with our colleagues around the world, succeeded. We’re in a fundamentally different place after our term than we were coming in. A place where, prior to this, a handful of players were acting, eight years later, we’ll have a proclamation that all countries re-affirm the importance and of their own domestic actions as well.

And then we’ve worked on adaptation questions. We’ve looked at how you can begin to minimise the risks and the damages. We’ve talked about policies that can manage the impact of sea level, what can you do to move communities inland, or move them up in elevation, how can you build programs which you can have first responses, because, frankly, one of the near-term effects will not be the sea level, it’ll be from those intermittent storms that are exacerbated by sea level, so early-warning systems that can manage the risk of damages.

We’ve also been looking at drought and drought-tolerant crops. We’ve been looking at the consequences of managing forest fires. We’ve been looking at how you deal with heat tolerance in places the world. We’ve looked at desalination technologies, and moving those to places that are exposed. So, we have a very robust agenda, led by a number of agencies in the United States government to move this.

And, finally, I note that we have to do more. None of us are proposing that we have done enough to rest on our laurels and to stop here. As Secretary Kerry made clear yesterday, we’re at the first stages of our big solution push. All of us have to act, because the damages are looming and avoiding them is going to be a key priority.