The report is the seventh issued by the Centre on the Six Americas – six segments within the American public that are characterised by distinct patterns of global warming beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, and behaviours: the Alarmed (13%), Concerned (31%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (7%), Doubtful (13%), and Dismissive (13%). Descriptions of the six groups can be found in the Introduction.
The report then focuses on how each of the Six Americas understands the human health consequences of global warming as identified in theU.S. National Climate Assessment.We find that even the segments most concerned about global warming have little understanding of the current or future impacts on human health. This limited awareness strongly indicates the need for more public education about how global warming will affect human health.
For example, an open-ended question asked respondents “In your view, what health problems are Americans experiencing from global warming, if any?” Only among the Alarmed did a majority (60%) accurately name a health problem associated with global warming (e.g., allergies, heat-related illnesses, vector-borne infectious diseases, etc.). Most respondents in the other segments had no response, didn’t know, or said there are no health problems from global warming.
Most Americans also have little to no understanding that some groups within society are more vulnerable to the health impacts than others. Only among the Alarmed did a majority (66%) understand that some groups are more vulnerable than others and in a subsequent open-ended question, only 51 percent of the Alarmed were able to accurately name a vulnerable group (e.g., the poor, homeless, seniors, sick or disabled, infants or children, etc.). Most respondents in the other groups had no response, didn’t know, or said no groups or types of Americans are more likely than other Americans to experience health problems related to global warming.
When asked to estimate how many people worldwide are currently injured or become ill each year due to global warming, majorities in all Six Americas say they don’t know, that no one is being harmed, or just hundreds of people. By contrast, a recentstudyestimates that 400,000 people worldwide currently die each year due to hunger and communicable diseases aggravated by climate change, while 4.5 million die from air pollution caused by the use of fossil fuels.
Thefull reportincludes the key beliefs and demographic characteristics of the Six Americas. It focuses on their awareness, understanding, and risk perceptions of the human health impacts, desired level of response from government to address the threat, support for funding health agencies, and trust in different information sources on global warming-related health problems.
Almost a quarter of the world trade in agricultural goods produced on land illegally cleared of forest is destined forthe EU; the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France and the UK dominate these imports
Deforestation in Peru. Photo credit: archive.peruthisweek.com
During 2000-12, an average of one football pitch of forest was illegallycleared every two minutes to supply the EU with beef, leather, palm oil and soy used for groceries, animal feed, leather shoes and biofuels, according to a new study released by Fern. It finds that the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France and the UK are by far the largest consumers of illegally sourced commodities flowing into the EU, which, as a whole, imports 25% of all soy, 18% of all palm oil, 15% of all beef and 31% of all leather in international trade stemming from illegal tropical forest destruction.
“It is well documented that the EU has been leading the world in imports of products which drive deforestation, but this is the first time that we have data showing that much of this deforestation is also illegal,” said Saskia Ozinga, Campaigns Coordinator at Fern, a Brussels-based NGO that published the report.
The study,Stolen Goods: the EU’s complicity in illegal tropical deforestation, builds onresearch carried out in 2014to estimate for the first time how much EU consumption is responsible for illegal deforestation – by value and by forest loss. It draws on the extensive and growing body of research documenting illegal deforestation for beef, leather, palm oil and soy – particularly in Brazil and Indonesia.
Due to its large ports, the Netherlands imports most – one-third – of the illegal deforestation commodities that flow into Europe. Many of these goods are, however, passed on to other European countries.
According to the study,the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, France and the UK imported 75% and consumed 63% of the tainted products imported into the EU. Different commodities are more important in different countries:
The Netherlands and Germany are the largest importers of palm oil, which goes into cosmetics and food products lining grocery stores shelves.
The UK is a particularly important destination for beef from illegal deforestation.
Most of the leather crosses over Italy’s borders. The country imported EUR 1 billion in illegal deforestation commodities, making it the largest EU consumer of illegal deforestation goods.
France is the highest importer of soy, most of which is used to feed chickens and pigs bred for meat.
The research finds that the majority of the illegal agricultural commodities that cross into the EU originate in Brazil and Indonesia. More than half of these products originate in Brazil, whereit is estimatedthat some 90% of deforestation is illegal; a quarter come from Indonesia, where some 80% of deforestation is thought to be illegal. Malaysia and Paraguay are among a number of other important sources.
“EU consumption does more than devastate the environment and contribute to climate change,” said Sam Lawson, author of the report. “The illegal nature of the deforestation means it is also driving corruption, and leading to lost revenues, violence and human rights abuses. Those seeking to halt the illegal deforestation have been threatened, attacked or even killed.”
Action Needed
The report details the actions the EU should take to stop its contribution to illegal deforestation. The key recommendation is for the EU to act on its commitment for an EU Action Plan on Deforestation and Forest Degradation.
“Demand for forest-risk commodities is being driven by a number of different EU policies, such as agriculture, trade and energy policy,” Ozinga explains. “We urgently need an Action Plan to make these different policies coherent, reduce EU consumption and ensure we only import legal and sustainably produced commodities.”
The report suggests that the EU should also use its market strength to push for reforms in supply countries to reduce illegality, just as theEU’s Action Plan to tackle illegal logging has done.
Ozinga continues: “An Action Plan on Deforestation and Forest Degradation could trigger a dialogue between the EU and supply countries using trade as an incentive. The EU can instigate law reform in supply countries by bringing together the relevant governments, industries and civil society groups to not only reduce deforestation but improve governance and strengthen indigenous and local peoples’ tenure rights.”
The report recognises that many companies have recently made voluntary commitments to clean up their supply chains with zero deforestation pledges, but cautions that in a context of widespread illegality, companies will find it hard to meet these commitments without government action.
Hannah Mowat, Fern campaigner, adds that an EU Action Plan would make a vital contribution to tackling climate change. “The role that forests play in regulating the climate is well known. To keep trees standing requires addressing the pressures driving deforestation, so the EU has a vital opportunity to halt deforestation by addressing its trade and consumption in agricultural commodities.”
Fern has disclosed that it will on 30th March, 2015 release a series of reports with recommendations to the EU to halt deforestation and respect communities’ rights, focusing on the EU’s Climate and Energy, Trade, Finance, Sustainable Consumption and Development Cooperation policies. Together, they form a comprehensive action plan for the EU to tackle deforestation and forest degradation.
Fernis a non-governmental organisation (NGO) and a Dutch Stichting created in 1995 to keep track of the European Union’s involvement in forests and coordinate NGO activities at the European level.
The COP21/CMP11 are being seen as the avenue for providing solutions to the Climate Agreement. France as the host country will be presiding at the 21st Session of the Conference of Parties (COP 21). Itis expected to be a crucial gathering of countries as it needs to achieve a new international agreement on the climate applicable to all countries with the aim of keeping global warming below 2 degree C.
Prince Lekan Fadina
France will be playing a leadership role within the international context to ensure convergence and to facilitate the search for consensus by the United Nations as well as European Union which has a major role to play in the climate negotiations.
The French Minister of Foreign Affairs has emphasised that COP 21 is to ensure that the world is mobilised and that an Agreement is reached in December in Paris. An international team of experts on climate change at a recent round table were of the view that the climate of the today may not be the climate of the future. They believe that the time for talking is over and it is time for action. They also stressed that the human contribution made so much impact to cause the climate change. They quoted that the different time series have shown distortion in the climatic situations of the world.
Segolene Royal, the French Finance Minister of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy, in her message while introducing COP 21 in Paris in December said that all companies and communities need to be actively involved in the process and that the government needed to facilitate the process in which people become involve in the efficient use of the natural resources. COP 21 is an important event for the French and it is a national challenge to make a success of it. Itis also for them to show to the world their commitment to protect the environment and play active role in ensuring that the global agreement is signed in December in Paris. It is a pride to the French that after Kyoto Protoco l was signed in Japan there is no other major global agreement that all parties will agree to and in this regard everything must be done to see that the ground is well watered for a meeting of that magnitude.
There is a great lesson in diplomacy that the arrangement of this conference is putting across especially where mobilisation is an important element in global issues.
Christian Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, in her message said that this is a turning point in the climate diplomacy as governments move into negotiation, the parties must ensure durable, robust agreement that is good for governments, business and global community. She urged all nations to be well prepared for the COP21, start the mobilisation of all segments of the society now and all see to it that we commit ourselves to make the most out of the Paris meeting.
We believe that the world is at a point that climate change is no longer a side issue but a collective challenge to all of us to join hands in addressing it. Itis our position that for us in Nigeria we as governments, private sector, civil society and the public need to work together and support the committee set up by the Minister of Environment to come up with a position that will help in ensuring that Nigeria ‘s interest is well reflected in our document to and activities in the COP 21. . By Prince Lekan Fadina (Executive Director, Centre for Investment, Sustainable Development, Management and Environment (CISME). (He is a member of the Nigeria Negotiation Team, Africa Group of Negotiators and member, AGN Finance Co-ordination Committee). Website: www.cismenigeria.com. Email: cismevision@gmail.com. Twitter: @cismevision
Over three million children of between ages zero to five years are being immunised against polio during the Immunisation Plus Days (IPDs) that commenced March 13 and ends March 18, 2015 in Kaduna State.
Polio immunisation. Photo credit: comminit.com
Secretary of Journalists Against Polio (JAP), Kaduna State Chapter, Alhaji Lawal A. Dogara, said 86 health camps in 16 local government areas (LGAs) have been set up for distribution of free drugs.
According to him, executive secretary, Kaduna State Primary Health Care Agency (SPHCA), Dr Sufiyan Mu’awuyya Babale, had urged the parents to give all the needed support to ensure no child is left out.
He assured that all required arrangements had been concluded to ensure eligible children were vaccinated, saying that the Agency had already distributed vaccines to all the LGAs for the exercise.
Babale commended the effort of traditional rulers and religious leaders and urged them to redouble such effort for the progress of the exercise.
He also commended the development partners for their giant stride aimed at ensuring the eradication of polio in Nigeria.
The National Union of Teachers (NUT) has provided free eye screening exercise for its members in the Jaba Local Government Area (LGA) of Kaduna State.
Eye screening. Photo credit: ghanahealthnest.com
NUT state chairman, Titus Amba, commended the union branch office in the LGA for its foresight. NUT State Public Relations Officer, Dauda Bahago, represented the chairman at the event held in Kwoi town.
He said the eye screening exercise would go a long way in improving the sight of the teachers in the local government.
He urged other branches of the NUT within the 23 LGAs of the state to emulate the Jaba chapter of the union.
Jaba NUT chairman, Yusuf Auta Nok, said they embarked on the free eye screening exercise having realised that most of the teachers in the area are bedevil with eyesight challenges.
“When the union took a tour of primary schools in the area we discovered most teachers find it difficult to read what they wrote on board, hence the need for the screening,” he said.
Earlier, Education Secretary of the LGA, Daniel Dams, said the local council would continue to offer support to the union in its determination to improve performance of its teachers.
He urged the teachers to reciprocate the kind gesture by being dedicated and committed to their duties at all time.
This piece will look at some issues and actions that are moving the tempo as we move towards COP 21 in Paris, France in December 2015.
Prince Lekan Fadina
The negotiation text is now available in all the six official languages of the United Nations. The consolidated versions of the convention text including amendments to Annex I and II in all the UN languages have been prepared. The text of the Convention on Climate Change sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. Itrecognises climate change as shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Itis pertinent to emphasise that the objective of COP 21 is for governments to deliver a new universal climate change agreement. The Agreement aims at putting the world on track to a low carbon sustainable future while keeping a global temperature rise under 2 degree C.
Submission of INDC Switzerland was the first country to submit its INDC to UNFCCC’s portal. The research by New Climate Institute tracked the progress of INDC preparations worldwide. The first round of the results includes information on the progress that 81 countries have made in the preparation of their INDCs. According to this research, there are indications that the INDCs are likely to be submitted in two phases – March and around September. All countries have been invited to publicly outline what actions they intend to take under the INDC. It is expected that these INDCs will be included in a new universal Climate Change Agreement to be reached in Paris in December 2015. Each country has its own internal process for INDC preparation, sign-off and submission.
Our investigation shows that there are challenges and opportunities arising from the INDCs process and most countries especially developing are learning from how some who have or in the process of submission are doing it or have done it.
Other activities European Union submitted its Climate Action Plan on 5th March, 2015. Africa Ministers of Environment in their statement on 9th March, 2015 supported a strong, balanced Paris Agreement. The UN Special Assistant to the UN Secretary-General on Climate Change has commenced its facilitation activities that will go a long way to ensure the success of COP 21. The integration outcome of the Financing Summit in Addis Ababa, the Sustainable Development Conference in New York and COP 21 in Paris should be clear to us that the UN declaration that 2015 is important in the UN calendar as this will open a new phase in the path of sustainable growth and development.
Nigeria’s committee on COP 21
We hereby congratulate the Minister of Environment and her officials for setting up a committee to look into, plan and ensure the successful participation of Nigeria at COP 21. We wish the committee all the best and we plead that they move fast in their activities considering the fact that we must ensure that Nigeria’s INDC is done in time because time is not so much on our side. We have a lot to do. We solicit the support of all of us in strategic campaign and process that will help in setting the Nigerian Agenda with all stakeholders – government, private sector, development partners, civil society and the society making useful contributions.
By Prince Lekan Fadina (Executive Director, Centre for Investment, Sustainable Development, Management and Environment (CISME). (He is a member of the Nigeria Negotiation Team, Africa Group of Negotiators and member, AGN Finance Co-ordination Committee). Website: www.cismenigeria.com. Email: cismevision@gmail.com. Twitter: @cismevision
As speakers and participants gather at Chatham House in central London for a two-day conference entitled ‘Extractive Industries in Africa’, individuals, organisations and coalitions from across Africa and beyond have signed an open letter challenging the conference organisers and attendees. The letter asks that delegates consider an alternative set of questions and discussion points which, rather than paying ‘mere lip service’ to sustainability and international protocols, addresses the climate, social and ecological crises that the extractives industries are implicated in and consider a genuine transition away from fossil fuels. The letter will be delivered by hand by Nnimmo Bassey, a lifelong activist challenging big oil in the Niger Delta, Director of Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria, and former Head of Friends of the Earth International.
Nnimmo Bassey
We, members of African civil society and our non-African allies, write to you to express our deep concerns regarding the conference on Extractive Industries in Africa taking place today in London.
At this event, which claims to critically consider the current and future role of extractive industries in Africa, we note with concern that mining corporations, government agencies, academics and large NGOs from the Global North are well represented. But where are the voices of affected African communities and civil society in this discussion?
With the exception of one civil society person from Kenya, members of African civil society and/or communities are entirely absent from your speakers list. The participation of African community members is effectively prevented by locating this conference outside of Africa and charging prohibitively expensive fees for attendance (£580 being the cheapest fee for non-member NGOs). It can only be hoped that this is not another Berlin Conference aimed this time at carving up the continent’s resources.
Local communities are most affected by extractive industries in Africa, which routinely disrupt and destroy their livelihoods, health, ecosystems and cultural coherence. To exclude their voices strips this event of all legitimacy.
At this time of multiple social and ecological crises, your conference asks the wrong questions and will only provide answers that miss the mark and risk worsening the social and environmental injustices perpetrated by the extractive industries and their allies in Africa.
Mere lip service is paid to sustainability and inclusivity, and to international protocols to reduce continued global reliance on fossil fuels and cut carbon emissions.
Referring to your materials for the conference, which pose ‘key questions for the future of the industry’ we firmly believe the focus should be on:
The societal, environmental and economic threats extractive industries pose to the future of the people and ecosystems of Africa and our shared climate, rather than on the so-called societal, environmental and economic pressures facing Africa’s extractive industries.
How to prevent the devastating impacts of the extractive industries rather than misleading discussions about what immediate action is required to manage and mitigate the long-term impacts of future extraction.
Finding radical alternatives to the failed resource extraction=growth=development equation, rather than seeking ways to plaster over the cracks of this failed and fundamentally flawed logic.
At this time of climate crisis, when we know 2/3 of all fossil fuels must remain untouched to prevent runaway climate change, we ought to ask how we can take every necessary step to transition away from carbon-hungry extractive activities and the extraction of fossil fuels, nothow we can promote both extractive industries and low-carbon development strategies.
‘New approaches to overcoming enduring challenges’ should not be concerned with aiding the already vastly wealthy extractive industries, but rather with moving beyond them to protect existing and promote future alternatives to creating genuine equality and prosperity in Africa, such as renewables and small-scale agroecological farming.
We call on Chatham House to show genuine leadership of thought to move beyond these tired and wasteful discussions and stop providing a safe space for extractive industries to take the stage and network unchallenged. The world’s scientific community has given us all the statistics we need; business as usual is simply not an option.
Now is not the time to think of the future of the extractive industries, but the future of people and the planet. If we do not, we will all share in the consequences.
We choose to stand for life.
Yours Sincerely,
Nnimmo Bassey, Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria
Sheila Berry, Wilderness Action Group & Save Our iMfolozi Wilderness campaign, South Africa
Supported by: The African Biodiversity Network, Kenya; Friends of the Earth Togo; GroundWork, Friends of the Earth South Africa; Noble Wadzah , Oilwatch, Ghana; Kentebe Ebiaridor, Oilwatch Africa, Nigeria; Kamese N. Geoffrey, Denis Tabaro, Shillar Osinde & Frank Muramuzi for the National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), Uganda; Priscilla M Achakpa, Women Environmental Programme, Nigeria; Kwami D Kpondzo, Young Christian Action for Development, Togo; Benson ATTAH, Community Emergency Response Initiative, Nigeria; Kelvin Uever, Charles and Doosurgh Abaagu Foundation, Nigeria; Hilma Mote, Executive Director of Africa Labour Research and Education Institute (ALREI) and International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC-Africa), Togo; The Mupo Foundation, South Africa; Anabela Lemos, Director of JA!FOE, Mozambique; Kofi Mawuli Klu, Global Justice Forum (GJF); Adwoa Oforiwaa Adu for All-Afrikan Students’ Union Link in Europe (AASULE) at Sussex University, Brighton; Sumana Nandi for Students’ Action for Global Justice Internationalist Society (SAGJIS) at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London; Simeon Stanford for Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE);Kwame Adofo Sampong for the Trade Unions and the Pan-Afrikan Community Link (TUPACOL); Olajumoke Sankofa for the Pan-Afrikan Community Educational Services (PACES); Esther Stanford-Xosei for the Global Afrikan People’s Parliament, UK; Kwame Dede Akuamoah for the ASASEYAAMMA Pan-Afrikan Green Campaign for Global Justice; Bishop Geoff Davies for the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute; Environmental Justice Organisations, Liabilities and Trade (EJOLT); London Mining Network, UK; Mining Watch Canada, Canada; The Gaia Foundation, UK; Friends of the Earth International; ICCA Consortium; Save Rosia Montana campaign, Romania; Mining Watch Romania; Snowchange Cooperative, Scandinavia; Comité Ambiental en Defensa de la Vida – Tolima, Colombia; Mariana Gomez, Yes to Life No to Mining, Latin America; Denver Justice & Peace Committee, USA; Marirosa Iannelli, Luca Raineri & Maurizio Belli for Co-operation for the Development of Emerging Countries (COSPE), Italy, Stop Water Grabbing Campaign; Bobby Andrew, Spokesman and Elder, Nunamta Aulukestai, USA; Guadalupe Rodríguez, Salva la Selva, Spain; Linda Sheehan, Earth Law Centre, California, USA; Rainforest Rescue, Germany; DECOIN, Defensa y Conservacion Ecologica de Intag, Ecuador; Center for Environment, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Friends of the Earth Bosnia and Herzegovina; Kalikasan Peoples Network for the Environment, Philippines; and Fossil Free SOAS, UK.
Nigeria has constituted a national preparatory committee to participate effectively at the Twenty-first Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) holding this year in Paris, France in December.
Minister of Environment, Mrs. Laurentia Mallam
Tagged the National Technical Committee for Paris 2015, the eight-man team will articulate and develop the country’s negotiating position at the COP, where the world will reach decisions on how to mitigate climate change by checking activities that promote it and, indeed, agree on a new climate deal. .
The committee members include: Mrs Nana Fatima Mede (committee chair and permanent secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment), Dr Samuel Adejuwon (Director, Department of Climate Change in the ministry), Dr Martin Uhomoibhi, Prof Babajide Alo, Dr Niyi Onamusi, Prof Olukayode Oladipo, Peter Tarfa (Deputy Director, DCC) and Kayode Adeniran.
The committee’s terms of reference include:
Coordination of national preparation towards Paris COP21/CMP11;
Articulating and developing the country’s negotiation position;
Assemble and train a technical team of negotiators for the country;
Sourcing for and ensuring adequate funding for the preparation for Paris;
Developing a stakeholder inclusive programme and ensuring participation of corporate Nigeria;
Convening meetings of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Climate Change;
Ensuring attendance and participation of country’s representatives at all international preparatory meetings; and,
Preparing and submitting a comprehensive report of COP 21
Minister of Environment, Mrs. Laurentia Mallam, while inaugurating the committee in Abuja last week, expressed fears about the global climate decisions on the Nigerian economy.
According to her, such decisions may adversely affect the nation’s economy because the country’s main source of income is crude oil, a raw material that emits greenhouse gas in large quantity and contributes considerably to climate change.
She said, “Nigeria’s attention should focus on practical and realistic Paris decisions, which do not only capture a common objective and recognise our different national circumstances, priorities and capabilities, but also raise ambition and launch a swift process of domestic proactivity and multilateral consultation and cooperation.
“More importantly, our participation should be very strategic, particularly as Nigeria’s economy is largely dependent on crude oil as its main source of foreign earnings; and crude oil, as we know, is a major source of greenhouse gas. Hence any international protocol or decision arrived at in this respect may positively or negatively affect our economy.”
A member of the committee, Prof Oladipo, said: “I think that it is a good initiative if you realise that the good outing that we had in Copenhagen (Demark) was facilitated by a coordinated committee approach that was put in place in 2009 by the then Minister of Environment (John Odey) and with the active role of the country’s Ambassador to Denmark, Dr Godknows Igali. With this committee, we should be able to have in place a process work-plan that will itemise what needs to be done by who and when to ensure our effective participation in all the required meetings for COP 21. In addition, with the demonstrated interest of the ministry in putting the committee together, efforts will be made to make sure that adequate funding is secured for Nigeria’s participation.”
A climate change negotiator, Prince Lekan Fadina, said: “I commend the Ministry and DCC for the inauguration of the COP 21 committee. It is a step in the right direction because it will ensure an engaging and effective participation by the nation at the global forum.”
Observers believe that the new development arose from the general concern that the country’s participation in COPs for climate change since COP 15 in Copenhagen has remained largely low-key and poorly coordinated, a scenario that was reportedly brought to the knowledge of Mrs Mede, the new Permanent Secretary in the ministry. It was her determination to reverse the trend that led to the constitution of the NTC, it was gathered.
Prof Oladipo added: “The establishment of the National Technical Committee for COP 21 is an aspect of the Strategic Action Plan that I recommended to the Department of Climate Change while helping to put together a National Strategic Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change in Nigeria in which I advocated a NTC for the climate change COPs, and not just for Paris alone.
“Overall, once the committee is able to demonstrate its relevance by ensuring that Nigeria participates timely and effectively and works with the private sector and development partners to mobilise resources for its participation, it will be seen as a positive approach to addressing national response to climate change in Nigeria.”
I have been asked a couple of times to explain the terms and terminology in the UNFCCC procedure. I hope some of these terms will assist in the knowledge of following up in the process towards Paris COP 21.
Prince Lekan Fadina
Annex I & Annex II Parties
There are two distinct groupings that are involved in the UNFCCC process. These are Annex I and Annex II Parties. Annex I Parties are the industrialised countries. These industrialised countries are said to be the major emitters and are bound to emissions reductions targets under the Kyoto Protocol (KP). The Annex II countries are the less industrialised countries and have faced less of legal obligations to act.
There are different views on this distinction because some people are of the view that some countries in the non-Annex I countries/Parties are said to have developed beyond their original position in 1992 at the time the KP Agreement was entered into. Certain parties see this distinction as a road block to a far-reaching global deal. Others view this as vital to ensuring that those with historical responsibilities for climate change take the greatest responsibility for tackling it.
Conference of Parties (COP)
Conference of Parties is where Parties (or countries) under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meet to negotiate on climate change. Paris will be hosting the 21st conference this year. The Parties have been negotiating for 25 years.
The Paris meeting is seen by some people as very important for humanity and that, if relatively ambitious deal is not reached, the suitability of the UNFCCC as a means of addressing climate change may be in doubt.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) The UNFCCC was signed in 1992 and held its first COP in 1995.The Convention was established with the aim of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations “at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system”. COP 21 is seen as a platform for an agreement that is actually going to make a difference in the lives of many people especially the vulnerable.
Bali Action Plan
The Bali Action Plan is a set of decisions and process emanating from the Dialogue on Long-Term Cooperative Action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention initiated during the Montreal Conference in 2005.The Action Plan forms a coherent basis for negotiations with a view to adopting an agreement in the post 2012 regime.
The four constituent components of the Bali Action Plan are: Mitigation, Adaptation, Technology Development & Transfer and Finance.
It is useful to mention that one of the significant developments at the Bali Conference was a change in formulation of the initial language of “developed and developing” countries that was replaced by a language of Parties “included in Annex I” and not included in “Annex 1”.
Copenhagen Accord The Copenhagen Accord was the product of discussion firstly between some 30 countries and then the United States and the four BASIC Group (Brazil, South Africa India and China).
The Accord stated the political desire of about 139 States associated with the Agreement to address climate change in accordance with the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. The Accord is not legally binding.
REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is the mechanism under the UNFCCC that seeks to reduce emissions, deforestation and degradation of forests.
Climate Finance There is presently a definitional issue on Climate Finance. The UNFCCC does not have a definition of climate finance, as it is still work in progress. However, data collectors and aggregators use different operational definitions but with common elements. The review of the climate finance definitions adopted by data collectors and aggregators identified in the summary and recommendations by the Standing Committee on Finance on 2014 biennial assessment and overview of climate finance flows points to a convergence that can be formed as “climate finance aims at reducing emissions and enhancing sinks of greenhouse gases and aims at reducing vulnerability of and maintaining and increasing the resilience of human and ecological systems to negative climate change impacts”.
Green Climate Fund (GCF) The Developed Countries at the United Nations Climate talks pledged $100 billion a year to help developing and poor countries cut their emissions and cope with climate change. Donors have contributed about $10 billion.
The Fund is important because it will catalyse finance and have a spin-off effect to spurring markets in wind, solar farms, renewable energy, carbon and other areas that emerging nations may prefer, according to Ms Hela Chelkroulion, the Executive Director of the Fund. The Secretariat of the Fund is in Seoul, South Korea. The Fund has a Board of Directors and the UNFCCC has the overall supervision of the Fund.
Loss and Damage Loss and Damage has become an area of focus in the international climate negotiation. It was adopted at COP19 in Warsaw, Poland in 2013.
Loss and Damage is inherently linked to mitigation and adaptation. It refers to loss and damage caused by the impacts of climate change. Specifically, it is the term given to the calls of many countries that Annex I Parties should offer a form of compensation to developing countries for the damage caused to them by climate change.
The term “Loss and Damage” was seen in the UNFCCC text for the first time at COP13 in Bali, Indonesia.
There are still many terms that will be useful for us to understand the global language especially now that there is a need to develop knowledge in various aspects of environment, climate change and sustainable development.
By Prince Lekan Fadina (Executive Director, Centre for Investment, Sustainable Development, Management and Environment (CISME). (He is a member of the Nigeria Negotiation Team, Africa Group of Negotiators and member, AGN Finance Co-ordination Committee). Website: www.cismenigeria.com. Email: cismevision@gmail.com
The Lima Climate Change Conference (COP 20) adopted the “Lima Call for Climate Action” which sets in motion negotiations in 2015 towards an agreement and the process for submitting and reviewing Intended National Determined Contributions (INDCs) and enhancing pre-2020 ambition. It focused on outcomes under the ADP necessary to advance towards an agreement in Paris COP 21 in December, 2015 including elaboration of the information and process required for submission of INDCs as early as possible in 2015.
Prince Lekan Fadina
The Lima conference was able to lay the groundwork for Paris by capturing progress made in elaborating the elements of a draft negotiating text for2015 agreement and adopting a decision on INDCs including their scope, upfront information and steps to be taken by the Secretariat after their submission.
It is recalled that the sessional meeting of the UNFCCC in Geneva in February came up with the negotiation text for the Paris meeting in December 2015. It is useful to state that one of the key aims of UNFCCC is stabilising the greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases). The Kyoto Protocol sets emission targets for developed countries which are binding under international law. The Kyoto Protocol has had two commitments periods, the first which was from 2005-2012 and the second, 2012-2020. All Annex l Parties excluding the US have participated in the 1st Kyoto Protocol commitment period, 37 Annex I countries and the EU have agreed to the second round of Kyoto targets. There are some countries that have not taken on new targets in the second commitment while some have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol since 2012.
Switzerland in February 2015 became the first country to submit its INDC. It is expected that other countries will follow her leadership role in time to assist the Secretariat to be able to put all together as this will be one of the useful documents in the negotiation for the new climate agreement that will come into operation in 2020. It is expected that the agreement is to ensure that the global temperature is under 2 degree C.
The COP 19 in its decision invited all parties to initiate or intensify domestic preparation for their INDCs in advance of COP 21 in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and undertaking of the INDC. The information to be provided by the Parties in the INDC may include as appropriate quantifiable information on the reference point including the base year, time frames and/or period for implementation, scope, coverage planning processes, assumptions and methodological approaches including those for estimating and accounting for anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and as appropriate, removals and how the Party considers that its INDC contribution is fair and ambitious in the light of its national circumstances and how it contributes towards achieving the objective of the Convention.
The Parties are expected to communicate the INDCs according to INDCs communication process in a manner that facilitates the clarity, transparency and understanding of the INDCs. The Secretariat is expected to prepare by 1st November, 2015 a synthesis report on the aggregate effect of all INDCs communicated by the Parties by October 2015. It is useful to know that Switzerland has set a target to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. Itis expected to do this through projects in Switzerland and also by projects abroad. The implications of this is that the Swiss are targeting their investments abroad to low carbon oriented projects. Itis most likely that other countries will follow this path and that means that there will be paradigm shift in global investments that requires change in the processes and other skills. Itis my view that building capacities, acquiring new knowledge, new technology and finance are necessary ingredients to address the challenges. I hasten to guess that this will be one of the issues to be on the table as we progress in the future matter.
Nigeria must address not only the INDC matter but the pathway to low carbon economy. I know we are locked in on the political matters; however, very soon, that should be out of the way and we must devote time to take the bull by the horn and face the new direction of sustainable way that will have an effect on our livelihood – energy, agriculture, forestry, health, education, job generation, unemployment and human capital development.
We must take appropriate steps to engage our people, develop collaborations and partnership by all of us – government, private sector and civil society. It is the overall interest of the people that should be paramount.
The time to seek the moves beyond oil is here with us and the collective effort of all of us and the support of our development partners and friends of Nigeria to assist us in the way we approach the challenges and opportunities of climate change should be given high priority.
We must remember that the agreement to cut the global emission to 2 degree C in Paris in December is for all parties and we must put machinery in place to be actively involved in the process. The COP 21 is not only for negotiation, we must put machinery in place to look for how we can benefit from the network and other ways of sharing experience and knowledge.
By Prince Lekan Fadina (Executive Director, Centre for Investment, Sustainable Development, Management and Environment (CISME). (He is a member of the Nigeria Negotiation Team, Africa Group of Negotiators and member, AGN Finance Co-ordination Committee). Website: www.cismenigeria.com. Email: cismevision@gmail.com
The report then focuses on how each of the Six Americas understands the human health consequences of global warming as identified in the U.S. National Climate Assessment. We find that even the segments most concerned about global warming have little understanding of the current or future impacts on human health. This limited awareness strongly indicates the need for more public education about how global warming will affect human health.
The full report includes the key beliefs and demographic characteristics of the Six Americas. It focuses on their awareness, understanding, and risk perceptions of the human health impacts, desired level of response from government to address the threat, support for funding health agencies, and trust in different information sources on global warming-related health problems.
