Earth

by Chiara von Guten

After last year’s failure at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, Cancun’s United Nations Climate Conference achieved some progress towards a low-carbon future and restored faith in the UN multilateral governance process.

Over 190 countries’ delegations gathered in Cancun, Mexico, on the 29^th November and on the 10^th of December for the 16^th Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the sixth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 6). The Kyoto Protocol is the current agreement which requires 40 industrialised countries to reduce their carbon emissions by 5% by 2012 according to 1990 levels. The US are the only industrialised country which did not ratify the protocol and also China – formally a developing country –  is not part to the agreement despite the fact that it has since then become the world major carbon emitter.

While the Copenhagen talks were expected to produce an all-encompassing agreement to succeed to the Kyoto Protocol and reached a dead end instead, lower expectations characterised this year’s climate talks, resulting in better, even if, fairly modest outcomes.

Cancun Agreements – how much progress has been made?

Well, the world is still far from a legally binding treaty to follow on the steps of the Kyoto Protocol and significant work is required to pave the way for a binding treaty to be adopted at the 2011 Conference of the Parties in Durban, South Africa. Some progress has, however, been made including the translation of most promises made under the voluntary Copenhagen Accord into formal UN decisions and the outline of new mechanisms to help address climate change.

Indeed, the Cancun Agreements officially recognised the objective of keeping the increase in global temperature to less than 2°C[i] above pre-industrial levels. Voluntary emissions cuts pledged by industrialised countries under the Copenhagen Accord are formally associated with the UN process even though they remain legally non-binding. Moreover, developing countries’ plans and mitigation actions to reduce emissions are encouraged and recognised within the multilateral process[ii]. However, while serious emissions cuts are required in the next decades if we are to keep temperature levels within the agreed limit, the Cancun package does not specify in greater detail the levels and means by which countries should reduce levels of green house gas emissions.

The Cancun package also reasserts the necessity to raise $30bn from wealthier countries to support climate action in developing countries up to 2012. Moreover, a Green Climate Fund[iii] is to be set up to raise and distribute $100bn from 2020 onwards, governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries and to be administered by the World Bank. The fund, to be provided by industrialised countries, will support climate adaptation and mitigation projects as well as low-carbon development in the developing world. Developing countries, however, question the choice of the World Bank as the trustee (as demanded by the US, EU and Japan), which they perceive as an instrument of western foreign policy. In addition, the World Bank role still has to be clearly outlined.

As for binding cuts in emissions, the Parties meeting under the Kyoto Protocol agreed to continue negotiations with the aim of avoiding any gap between the first commitment period (up to 2012) and the second commitment period (still to be negotiated and applied from 2012 onwards). This is certainly one of the most impressive achievements of the Mexican presidency led by Ms Patricia Espinosa, the foreign secretary of Mexico. In fact, when the Cancun talks started Japan, Canada and Russia were among a number of countries which  refused to take part to the second commitment period. While the text provides reassurance on the likelihood of a second commitment period, it does not require countries to sign up, suggesting that to have both developed and developing countries to agree on its legal form and targets will prove difficult.

Decisions were also made regarding deforestation, climate change and technology transfer.

The Cancun Agreements outline the principles underlying the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) mechanism and set up a Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) work programme on policy approaches and positive incentives on related issues in developing countries[iv]. Moreover, the Conference established the Cancun Adaptation Framework[v] to allow better planning and implementation of adaptation projects in developing countries through increased financial and technical support. With the aim of supporting action on mitigation and adaptation, a Technology Mechanism[vi] together with a new technology executive board is created to boost technology development and transfer. While it remains to be seen how such processes will be implemented in practice, the Cancun Package formally lays out the principles for action to be taken.

A restored faith in multilateral climate governance but still a long way to go

Contrary to the 15^th Conference of the Parties which reached a dead-end in Copenhagen despite a voluntary accord agreed in extremis by 30 countries but not adopted by the Conference, the Cancun climate talks did result in a set of legal decisions adopted by the Parties on a consensual basis and constitutes a significant achievement in itself. In fact, a repeated failure at Cancun would have seriously damaged any prospects for the UN process to remain an adequate forum for climate negotiations at the global level. After Cancun, the UN process finds itself revived but more importantly, it gains new institutions and programmes that add grounds to international cooperation on climate change.

As for the negotiation process itself, Mexico, which hosted COP16, did a lot to reassure developing countries that their opinions were being heard and to reaffirm the UN principles of transparency and openness. The most decisive compromises were brought up by India, China and Brazil. India, in particular, played a major role in this negotiation and suggested that it would consider agreeing to mandated cuts at some point in the future. China made similar assertions towards the end of the conference, regarding an eventual possibility for voluntary emission cuts to be registered under the UNFCCC. On the contrary, the European diplomacy appeared rather paralysed and unable to take any leadership in the negotiation process. The US seem rather unlikely to make any significant commitment in terms of emission reduction, especially in light of recent changes in partisan representation in government entities, with the recent comeback of Republicans.

In the end, Bolivia was the only country to reject the Cancun package considering the 2°C limit too lax, the absence of new commitments to reduce emissions by developed countries which it wanted and the integration of principles agreed on in the Copenhagen Accord which Bolivia has always strongly opposed. Contrary to the Copenhagen talks where its rejections were backed up by other countries, in Cancun Bolivia ended up seating alone on the opposition bench without compromising the Cancun package adoption by consensus as required by the UN.

What comes next

Clearly, serious cuts in greenhouse gases emissions are required from both industrialised and developing countries in the next decade if we are to keep temperature levels within the agreed limit of 2°C according to pre-industrial levels. The difficulty in agreeing on post-2012 emission targets is critically heightened by the position of countries such as Japan, Canada and Russia which refuse to commit if countries such as the US, China and India do not agree on similar cuts. In addition, many other issues remain to be clarified, especially on the provision of funding from developed countries to support adaptation and mitigation projects as well as for technology transfer from the North to the South to expand. In this context, negotiations and concerted efforts in the coming months will most probably influence the next Conference of the Parties to be held in Durban, South Africa towards the end of 2011.

[i] Cancun Agreements – “Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention” p.2, available at http://unfccc.int/2860.php

[ii] Ibidem, p. 8

[iii] Ibidem, p.15

[iv] Ibidem, p.10-12 and Appendix II

[v] Ibidem, p. 3-4

[vi] Ibidem, p.16-20

Michele Samoggia Zerbetto

In 2008, for the first time in history, the proportion of the world’s population living in urban areas reached 50% and, if current trends will continue, as predicted by the most recent estimates made by UN-HABITAT (2009), in 2030 the share will be equal to 60%, thus representing a total population of the cities doubling from two to four billion people. Accommodating these inhabitants will mean that the equivalent of seven new ten million person cities each year will be needed and that by 2025 the number of “megacities” (agglomerations of more than ten million inhabitants ), will raise to 27 compared to the 20 of today.

However, what seems to be more challenging about the on-going process of urbanization to which we are witnessing is, on the one hand, its rapidity and, on the other hand, that it will mainly occur in less developed countries (LDC). This will seriously challenge national governments in those countries that do not have the necessary infrastructure to receive such an enormous flow of people, thus exacerbating the growth of urban slums, with no public services like clean water, electricity, housing and transportation. Moreover, the continuing urbanization will also challenge the consumption of energy given the fact that, according to the World Energy Outlook (2009), cities represented the 2/3 of global energy consumption in 2006 and are expected to count for the ¾ by the year 2030, thus representing a severe sustainability issue.

Major responsible of this consumption will be lighting and heating for buildings, which are actually responsible for the 25% of total energy consumption, and transportation, which counts for the 13,5% of today’s consumption. Against this backdrop, the development of eco-friendly cities represents a priority to meet international goals in terms of CO2 emissions reduction. In fact, since cities’ high density makes it possible to achieve better results with the same level of action. Then, the challenge for policymakers in LDC will be twofold: adopting policies to increase cities’ sustainability and, at the same time, implementing the appropriate actions so as to curb CO2 emissions.

Thinking and planning a Smart City

The use of low carbon technologies to accelerate development and promote economic growth is often referred to as “leapfrogging”, meaning the implementation of a new and up-to date technology in an application area in which the previous version of that technology has not been deployed. Within this debate, leapfrogging could allow LDC to avoid locking themselves in hydrocarbon intensive technologies and infrastructures and immediately shift towards a low carbon paradigm.

Translating these theories into practice would mean, for LDC, taking prompt actions in order to plan their cities according to the concept of a “Smart City” defined as a city based on Smart Grids, on a new generation of buildings, on renewable resources and on new, low carbon, transport solutions capable to change the future energy paradigm.

The rationales for developing countries to plan a Smart City at an early stage are many, among those: the need to give their contribution in the fight of climate change, in order to achieve the international goals of avoiding a raise of the temperature above 2°C, to increase their competitiveness and growth, to fight energy poverty and to guarantee themselves the security of energy supply. Finally, another push in starting to immediately plan Smart Cities comes from the fact that IEA (2009) has estimated that each year of delayed action would add 336bn of euro to the investment needed globally in clean energy from 2010-2030 .

The first step in the path towards a Smart City is represented by Smart Grids, defined as “an electricity network that can intelligently integrate the actions of all users connected to it –generators, consumers, and those that do both- in order to efficiently deliver sustainable, economic and secure electricity supply ”. The development of Smart Grids is essential in order to: • Guarantee the integration of renewable energy and distributed generation into the grid;

• Guarantee a more reliable infrastructure;

• Trigger demand reduction and improvements in energy efficiency;

• Allow the electrification of heat and transport.

Thanks to the benefits provided by the Smart Grids, LDC could better achieve the goals of reducing their emissions, improve their energy security and foster their economic growth. Moreover, LDC could achieve three types of economic gains. Firstly, by promoting small renewable and distributed generation, developing countries could avoid investing in big size power plant and in the all connected infrastructure necessary to transport energy for long distances. Secondly, they could better face the problem of frauds, which are very common in informal settlements. Finally, thanks to better efficiency, they could reduce the investment needed in extra capacity.

However, planning and moving toward the construction of Smart Cities will not be an easy task because of the huge investments in technical (buildings, networks), social and human capital. Indeed, many of the necessary communication, automation and grid technologies have already been proven and others are in the final stage of development. The most significant challenge will be one of cost and deployment, as the implementation of an holistic end-to-end smart grid will require the dramatic scaling up of investments and the design of new market structure and new regulatory mechanisms. In order to meet these challenges, action will be needed at all stages of government. It should involve the broader spectrum of stakeholders, and it should engage the surrounding macro-environment.

Within this context, the role of public private partnership (PPP) could be crucial in designing and implementing efficient solutions, as the main outcomes of PPP are transferring technology and management efficiency to public services. PPP could also allow leveraging private sector capital, although they cannot entirely solve the problem of extending basic services to the poor while, at the same time, curbing emissions. Therefore, public money is still needed to invest in human and social capital. In this respect, a different range of other measures can be deployed in order to raise the necessary funds. Some examples are:

• Progressively increase land and property taxes;

• Tax the capital gains on land and buildings streaming from public investments and regulation changes;

• Use carbon finance, in order to sell emissions rights to the north and, more generally, to benefit from future north-south transfers aimed at lowering the cost of curbing emissions and sharing responsibilities;

Finally, a major role will expect to regulators, which will need to design the appropriate framework of incentives to foster the investment of national and multinational firms and to promote the involvement of citizens.