OPINION: After Paris – “Going from intended to implemented, that is the question” says Margaret Kamau, Kenya

Kenya aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to Business As Usual. This goal is subject to international support in the form of finance, investment, technology development and transfer, and capacity building. Margaret Kamau, CDKN´s Country Engagement and Project Manager talks to Miren Gutiérrez about what this target means for her country. This is part of a CDKN series on implementing the Paris Agreement: read more at www.cdkn.org/after-paris-perspectives

 

The Paris Agreement created an ambitious mandate for the global community. Does it change the national conversation in Kenya about action on climate change? If so, how?

Well before, for much of 2015, there has been quite a momentum in Kenya around preparations for COP21[Editor: 21^st Conference of the Parties for the UNFCCC], the INDCs [Climate plans which countries submitted to the conference] and the Paris Agreement. A number of stakeholders were quite involved in the ‘road to COP’ process. I think that this kind of momentum has carried on in 2016.

From meetings that we had this February and March, we can tell there is a bit of uncertainty about “what next” with regards to the Paris Agreement. But the Government of Kenya is taking steps to clarify this. For example, in mid-February there was a meeting on the post-Paris situation with a wide range of civil society organisations and other stakeholders, where the government was able to explain what the next steps were and what the COP21 meant.

In two weeks, there is another stakeholder consultation session, now addressed towards developing the next steps after Paris. Now we are waiting to hear what the government has planned and what they need support for. I know they are also looking at the implications for Kenya’s growth and sustainable development. So I think the main influence COP21 has had is creating momentum before, during and after the event.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon visits a geothermal power facility in Kenya; courtesy UNEP.

Are these consultations with civil society and stakeholders binding in any way, has the government been gathering their feedback, or are they just informative?

They have been mainly for information purposes, not to get feedback or to pass clear information on what the next steps are. But I believe the intention of the government is that the next meeting is to be more action oriented. Kenya’s civil society has challenged the government to take action to implementing the agreement. But not openly in the media.

As for coverage, media articles and news stories on climate change tended to be published before and during COP21, with different sectoral approaches. Since the Paris conference, we haven’t seen as much. Although that is not necessarily negative…

Kenya indeed submitted an ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contribution’ (INDC). What will it take to get from ‘intended’ to ‘implemented’? What are the big opportunities and challenges?

That is the question. In terms of implementation, we believe the next step the government should take is to lay out the key priority actions in the climate action plan, and take them forward. There is the realisation that the actions contained in the INDC have been ongoing actions. So it is about accelerating investment to support implementation in those areas.

The big opportunities are first at a sectoral level. The energy sector, the forestry sector, the transport sector have all seen significant growth in the last few years. So those would be quick wins: sectors where there has been ongoing work.

In the energy sector, for example, there is already significant investment [in low carbon energy], but there is room for more. The next steps would be: identifying the actions, the key people and institutions to take those actions and accessing the finance required.

Another opportunity would be leveraging the momentum that the Paris Agreement has created to make sure that all stakeholders are aware of it, and employing this ongoing interest and buy-in for activities.

Finance presents both an opportunity and a challenge. We have different financing opportunities, such as Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which may be accessed to implement the country’s NDC. A Kenyan entity has just been accredited as the National Management Authority to access direct funding from the GCF. These are opportunities that the government is already taking.

NAMAs are being developed for the bus rapid transit system, another one for a grid of renewable energy and waste management. A geothermal NAMA was developed and is explored in CDKN’s Inside Story on Climate Compatible Development.

In addition, there is bilateral and multilateral funding: the governments of the UK and Japan and institutions such as the World Bank are funding elements of the NDC as well.

In the finance arena, the Government of Kenya has faced hurdles in producing investment plans and proposals that actually attract funding. Here, some investment may be needed in enhancing capacity for proposal development. A current CDKN project is supporting the government to write an adaptation proposal for the GCF. We are responding to a direct government request to help them fill a gap.

Other challenges include coordination. Over the past years, I think the government has improved its coordinated approach towards climate change and development. This has been particularly evident recently during the INDC process. But coordination across government remains a challenge which they continue to address.

Skyline of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital; courtesy Jonathan Stonehouse

The Paris Agreement calls for limiting average global temperature rise well below 2C, as close to 1.5C as possible. Kenya’s emissions are not huge, but they are growing fast – what hope to see economic growth and human development with lowered emissions in the specific case of Kenya?  

Using the energy sector is a good example. We have seen a significant increase in investments in the renewable energy sector, particularly in geothermal and wind power. About 50% of Kenya´s electricity[1] comes from renewable sources, and this is a number that is increasing on a daily basis. We think that this it is not actually hampering economic growth, because before geothermal power became the focus, hydroelectric power was being produced from dams. Obviously, that meant that during the power crisis electricity was quite erratic because of the reliance on hydropower [Editor: linked to reduced rainfall and river levels – the CDKN Inside Story explains further]. So the focus on this new generation of renewables is actually supporting growth because it is a more reliable source of power and businesses now have more reliable sources of power.

In agriculture, initiatives such as the one led by COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) to reduce agricultural emissions across Kenya and several other African countries will help combat climate change while addressing food security, from the policy level to the farm level.

We have seen initiatives and interventions to improve forest cover and to improve forest conservation resulting in a better environment for people and the communities living around forests. And this translates to improved human development and better economic growth. So far it has not limited economic growth either.

This will continue being a trend for the next couple of years. We still have untapped solar and wind resources. We are expected to have a large 300 megawatt solar farm in the next few years, which will only reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and promote economic growth.

Technology hub, Kenya; courtesy UNDP.

If you check most INDCs from developing countries their emission reduction targets are subject to technology development, international climate finance and capacity building. What would happen if these ‘means of implementation’ do not flow? 

Countries like Kenya have taken some steps towards building internal capacity and using domestic financial national resources to put in place climate change initiatives. This is evident in some government-enabled food security projects, as well as in the setting up of research institutions, industrial research institutions, with technology development. If the means are not put forward, it is not to say that countries such as Kenya will not take action anyway. But the view is that action will be slower because obviously there are other pressing needs that the domestic budget needs to serve. It won’t be a large allocation for a long time, so this will slow the process in achieving sustainable development.

Why are some countries more successful than others in attracting international resources to support climate compatible development? Does their ability to negotiate have anything to do with it? How would you rate Kenya´s performance so far?

Definitely the ability of a country to negotiate in the international arena plays a huge role in attracting climate finance. But also, one thing that stands out looking at these countries have taken initiatives on their own. Brazil, Mexico and Morocco may have allocated domestic resources towards climate change initiatives. And this can help make a case before they go and negotiate climate finance. I believe part of making the case is showing what you can do with our own resources. I think that these have been countries that have been successful in doing this, and when they go to international arena they are not just asking for money. They are saying: this is what we have done and now we need more money to grow this pilot initiate.

Finally, Kenya not very well known for its negotiation power, but I think being part of the African Group of Negotiators has helped Kenya and fellow African countries to try to negotiate collectively. But [its influence] could be improved with further international support.

The SDGs have many climate-related components, as well as a dedicated climate goal. What are some of the ways that the SDGs will influence the planning and practice of development in Kenya in the coming years?

There has not been a lot of communication on the SDGs locally, since the New York summit last September. CDKN helped convene an SDG dialogue process in 2014 – to provide a platform for Kenyan voices in developing the goals. And what came out of this process is that Kenya would need more integrated planning, not just for key economic sectors, making integrated planning a habit if the SDGs are to be achieved. Kenya is also in the process of writing up a green economy strategy, which looks at how to maintain sustainable development while growing the economy.

 

Image: Kenya, courtesy DFID.

[1] Kenya is looking to geothermal energy to power its growth and reduce reliance on imports. As of 2015, geothermal accounted for 51% percent of Kenya’s energy mix (up from only 13% in 2010). Kenya´s also investing on wind, with Africa’s largest wind farm (310 MW) set to provide another 20% of the country´s installed electricity generating capacity. Those two combined will help Kenya generate 71% of its electricity with renewables in the future, according to CleanTechnica.

by: CDKN Global, Miren Gutierrez, Margaret Kamau | on: 12pm, March 27, 2016

OPINION: “You cannot turn back from Paris” – Sam Bickersteth

Sam Bickersteth, Chief Executive of CDKN, has led this global alliance of southern and northern organisations delivering innovative solutions for climate compatible development since 2011. Meanwhile, CDKN has become a leading global, multi-donor funded programme supporting developing country decision-makers. It has designed and delivered over 400 technical assistance, research and knowledge management projects in 70 countries. From his privileged observer’s position, Sam talks with Miren Gutierrez about the Paris agreement and its implications for developing countries.

What have you learned from your experience of leading CDKN?

How long have you got? Let me try to pull out the top three learning experiences…I´ve learned that there is something distinct about the climate change challenge in relation with other development challenges. There is something new and different about it in the sense that is global, and that the science has been evolving as we had to tackle the problem. I´ve learned that the urgency is far greater than I first realised. It is huge. I don’t think I, or any of us, knew that at the beginning, frankly. So there is something about the challenge of managing the science-policy interface, which is at the heart of what we do, while having to tackle problems, which has made it particularly challenging and interesting.

Allied to that is the importance of linking international processes to local processes. That has become very clear in the relationship between the UNFCCC process and national development. Probably more starkly than I´ve ever seen in other areas of development that I´ve worked on, the local and national and global can be mutually reinforcing.

The third area of learning is really around building an alliance, which requires a lot of skills and a constant effort to hear the diversity of voice and perspective, while having a sense of direction.   It is an ongoing process. That is why I am still in the job, because I find it incredibly enjoyable and fascinating. We created a fabulous team from many parts of the world, who have common sense of the challenge of integrating climate action into ongoing development.

How do you view developing countries’ domestic processes of negotiating the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)? CDKN has assisted some of these countries.  

The INDCs were bottom-up processes, and they were a recognition that top-down processes were never going to work very well in climate change. Copenhagen was an attempt at a top-down process, and by and large was not so successful. The INDC process, instead, enabled everyone to be included. And beyond all expectations so many parties, virtually all parties, put forward their INDCs, which was great.

How do you think the emission targets in developing countries’ INDCs will be delivered? India, for example, submitted a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33-35% per unit of GDP, conditional on finance being made available. India is one of the large emitting countries (in absolute terms). How is this going to be monitored? And will sufficient finance materialise?

There wasn’t a distinct template for the INDCs – partly because the approach taken was so inclusive. This means the INDCs are not directly comparable with each other. This is definitely a problem, because for the Paris Agreement to be effective, the rules, the transparency and the reporting must hold all countries to account. If there is no comparator of what emissions are, it is going to be really hard.

CDKN, amongst others, provided some guidance as to what the INDCs could include, and now we are providing guidance in the implementation. It continues to be an open and inclusive approach. At national level, it is sovereign governments who will be making these difficult decisions about shifting towards low-carbon, climate-resilient economic growth paths. This cannot be done by a remote process headquartered in Bonn, Germany. That was never going to work.

Although the bottom-up INDC process was a good one, we know that the INDCs do not add up to the less than 2 degrees of global warming we are collectively aiming for. It could have been worse – emissions commitments could have still set us on the road to 3.5 degrees; while it is between 2.7 and 3 degrees. What a huge gap we have to fill[1].

There are also questions about baselines from which you measure emissions reductions: sometimes, baselines are not so good. Land use is not captured in many countries’ emissions baselines, while it is one of the major sources and sinks for greenhouse gas emissions. The data is weak or lacking in many countries. For instance, Bangladesh has a really good INDC, but was not able to include land use as the data was not good enough yet.

So there is a huge goal to climb in making INDCs good enough. But they are a point of departure.

Finance for climate action in developing countries will come partly from international sources. India has been quite explicit about the requirement for that. But India is one of the biggest economic powers in the world, and has huge resources itself: some of these resources will be channelled into developing non-fossil fuel and alternative sources of energy.

On India’s outlook for climate mitigation action, specifically: there are some very positive ambitions and national initiatives underway to deliver solar power, other renewables and energy efficiency in India (see CDKN’s India page). We also see how renewable technology developments world wide are driving down the costs of renewables and achieving parity in the cost of power production compared to fossil fuel sources – this can only benefit a giant country like India with hundreds of millions of people living in conditions of unacceptable poverty.

For instance, look at the exciting developments right now in Morocco. The government has just tendered for huge wind farms and the bidders are offering to produce energy at 3 cents per kilowatt/hour, which is super cheap. And they have launched the world’s largest solar scheme there. You are getting big solar PV (photovoltaic) systems in the Middle East and Dubai at 5 cents per kilowatt/hour. (These are both in the range of power production costs for gas- and coal-fired power plants.) The changing cost of technology is shifting the curve and creating the potential for renewables to truly compete with fossil fuels in the power sector.

The only thing I would add is a very interesting aspect of gender dimensions in India. I heard the India’s Minister of Environment speak on this topic in Paris. CDKN supported the mainstreaming of gender considerations into the state action plans in a number of Indian states. That is really important because of the differential impacts of air pollution on men and women, the differential access to finance for men and women, and the potential for climate compatible development solutions to contribute to gender equality – rather than entrench inequality.

What is your take on the Paris summit overall, then? 

The outcome of the Paris agreement was better that it might have been. And sets a very important tone. You cannot turn back from Paris. All the parties agreed, and there was a sense that the private sector had engaged in a way that never had before. It is a point from which we see the possibility to shift things. And you can see transformation in the energy systems taking place here in the UK and Europe; they are closing down coal stations week after week; you see renewables taking 30%, 40%, 100% of the entire daily supply of electricity systems in parts of Europe. It is really transforming things.

But there will be lots of countries and processes that will try to block the speed of action we must achieve in moving to climate compatible development. We must accelerate action: building the rules and the accountability, shifting investments, engaging the private sector even more. Still, awareness in society of the climate challenge is only the ‘tip of iceberg’.

Even if all developed countries do all they can, that still isn´t enough to keep us globally within safe limit of 2 degrees of warming. And that is why developing countries have to join the low carbon revolution, too.

Are you optimistic? Will we manage to keep temperatures below the 2 degrees threshold?

I am really optimistic about this transformation we are seeing in the energy systems; but I am deeply troubled about the challenge if we look at land use systems. For example, 40% of Peru´s emissions come from deforestation. For years, civil society, governments and industries have debated deforestation in this region; yet still illegal mining continues to destroy huge areas of forest in the Peruvian Amazon, and as many people are being killed in those conflicts as has ever been the case.

The Governments of Ethiopia and Rwanda are demonstrating what the level of ambition should be around sustainable land use management and they are really shifting policies and practices. Sixty four percent of emissions reduction being planned in Ethiopia will come from a huge effort to improve land use cover and watershed management, aside from investments in hydro and improvements in its transport system. But in other parts of the world the level of reforestation, regeneration and avoided deforestation is just a massive task.

Even if we tackle forestry, we don´t know what to do about livestock. The big existential threat is that we still eat lots of meat. Global meat consumption is projected to grow by 75% by 2050.  We start to see technology to improve things, but we need to shift behaviours as well. Although it is just such a long way to go, we can reduce emissions from this sector by up to one third by cutting down on the meat we eat; or we can go further if we become vegetarians.

How do we sustainably feed 9 million people? What does sustainable intensification of agriculture and forestry look like? These are really big challenges ahead.

I think there is a possibility that the world will warm beyond the 2 degree threshold and then retreat below it again. We are likely to see many more storms and more extreme events, global temperatures will continue to increase, tipping points will be reached… where is it going to go? It is going to go into sea level rise and extreme events. It seems to me implausible right now that we don´t go over 2 degrees. But I think it is plausible we can manage this, although many states in the frontline, including the UK, will face major threats. We have to get to zero net carbon emissions by 2050 or thereabouts (see UNEP’s analysis in its latest Emissions Gap Report).

As more business opportunities emerge in clean development, investment will happen in an extraordinarily short period of time. Actually, technology is moving fast to improve this. For example this huge Moroccan solar plant continues to generate power nearly 24 hours a day as it stores up the heat in water at night. Human ingenuity is going to do a lot, but many people are going to be hit in the process. That is why building resilience is such a major priority.

What about next steps after Paris?

The key words here are ratification implementation and integration. From 22^nd April countries are invited to ratify the Paris agreement at the UN Headquarters in New York. There have been encouraging signs that the U.S. and China may ratify this year, but so far only three Pacific states, on the frontline of climate change –Marshall Islands, Fiji and Palau— have acceded. It will require 55 countries whose emissions total 55% of global greenhouse gases to enable the Treaty to come into effect and, with many short term political challenges, significant groups like the EU may not be in a position to ratify until 2017.

As for implementation, several of the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States presented ambitious INDCs. Ethiopia has set a target to reduce emissions by 64% versus what its 2030 ‘business as usual’ levels would be, while the Marshall Islands INDC pledged to reduce emissions by 32% below 2010 levels by 2025. It is important that progressive, “lighthouse” countries make an early start to demonstrate the economic and social benefits of implementation.

Countries agreed in Paris to review targets and ‘ratchet’ them up to higher levels of ambition every five years. This means that NDCs are now a pressing implementation issue for developing countries. Review means they have to progress their commitments each time.

With limited capacity and paucity of data the reporting may place a burden on climate vulnerable countries unless external support is forthcoming. Therefore, international support will be important.

In addition, the INDCs to date have most set out the “low hanging fruit” – the easier to achieve emissions reductions opportunities. In subsequent five year cycles towards 2030, ramping up ambition effectively will be a really challenging process, which will need further  support.

Integration comes next. NDCs have been a powerful tool for engaging all ministries across government and all sectors of society. This had been important for building strong domestic support for climate change nationally, which in turn itself is an important foundation for international diplomatic efforts.

The current ratification process in each country is an opportunity to engage a wide cross section of policy makers, public opinion and legislators around climate goals.

Further reading:

Climate Funds Update – to understand investment flows

CDKN’s Guide to INDCs 

[1] According to a report published by UNEP, the “INDCs represent GHG emission reductions of 4 to 6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO₂e/yr) in 2030 compared to projected emissions under current policy trajectories… Efforts to tackle climate change, including those taken before the Paris agreement and full implementation of the INDCs, could cut up to 11 GtCO₂e from projected emissions in 2030.  This is however around half of the total required to reach the global emission level of 42 GtCO₂e in 2030 consistent with having a likely chance (>66 percent) of staying below the 2°C target in 2100.”

by: CDKN Global, Sam Bickersteth | on: 10am, April 18, 2016

OPINION: After Paris – “For El Salvador, this is a matter of survival”, Jorge Rodríguez

On her return from the Paris climate talks (COP21) last December, El Salvador’s Minister of Environment Lina Pohl seemed satisfied that the new agreement embraces old demands of the Central American region and other vulnerable countries, writes CDKN’s Miren Gutierrez. Among these: the fact that the agreement is legally binding, and that it includes efforts to maintain temperatures below 1.5C of warming; the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; and an explicit distinction between adaptation, and loss and damage. Countries vulnerable to climate change seized the moment at the start of the UN climate talks in Paris by challenging Europe, the U.S. and China to increase their aspirations and establish a long-term temperature goal of 1.5C, rather than the 2C, of warming. The Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR–RC) is a principle within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that recognises the dissimilar capabilities and responsibilities of countries facing climate change. Before the Paris Agreement, the issue of loss and damage had been previously treated as a sub-category of adaptation.

In this interview, Jorge Rodríguez, country representative, offers a view on the future of El Salvador´s climate change commitments:

The Paris Agreement created an ambitious mandate for the global community. Does it change the national conversation in El Salvador about action on climate change? If so, how?

In Paris, El Salvador presented qualitative contributions related to its mitigation plans. The Ministry of Environment is expected to start work on its quantitative contributions this year. For the Government of El Salvador, the issue of the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution is very important because it is a way of putting the issue on the table at a national level. Their strategy is to establish the contributions of the country, to have them ratified by Congress, and from there on, to apply the commitments to different sectors.

As you said, El Salvador submitted its INDC – what will it take to get from ‘intended’ to ‘implemented’? What are the big opportunities and challenges?

El Salvador is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change. Besides, it is a country that has failed to grow economically for the past 20 years (the GDP growth rate is similar to the population growth rate). In this context, decisions about how to employ our resources generate a lot of socio-political conflict and tension, and this has become the biggest challenge El Salvador is facing right now.

On the one hand, climate change and weather-related disasters are generating great losses at social and economic levels in El Salvador, as well seriously affecting key sectors, such as agriculture and infrastructure. On the other hand, opportunities are being created as well, since solutions to this quandary can be found in green growth, with the possibility also to access climate finance: this way both economic development and a reduction of vulnerability would be produced.

The Paris Agreement calls for limiting average global temperature rise well below 2C, as close to 1.5C as possible. El Salvador’s emissions are very low, what hope is there to see economic growth and human development with low emissions in the specific case of El Salvador? Concretely how do you go about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, addressing food security and economic development, and climate change, as well as sustainably increasing food productivity?

El Salvador’s motivation is not fighting against global warming per se; this is a matter of survival. The increase in average temperatures in this country already exceeds 1.5 C. Most ecosystems, as well as the soil, are already degraded. We are also experiencing problems with water availability, along with droughts and extreme rainfall, which are causing havoc in the country’s economy.

In this regard, El Salvador does not have a commitment with the world, but a commitment with itself to reduce its vulnerability to climate change. That is why an approach to mitigation based on adaptation has been assimilated.

Under the Bonn Challenge[1], the Minister of Environment pledged to restore one million degraded hectares. In a 24,000 km2-country, this is more than a relevant dimension. With this initiative, the idea is to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, but really its main purposes are bolstering our water resources, restoring soils so they regain their productive capacity and generating spaces that are safer for the people living in them, among other benefits.

If you check most INDCs from developing countries their emission reduction targets are subject to technology development, international climate finance and capacity building. What would happen if the means of implementation does not flow? 

While international support is important, El Salvador is taking steps as far as its own resources allow it. Some examples include the creation, at an institutional level, of a space for interinstitutional coordination, called Office of Environmental Sustainability and Vulnerability. This highlights how high this matter is in the political agenda. There are other initiatives, for instance, to create funds to encourage the restoration of ecosystems and landscapes, to which the private sector is contributing. The government is changing the regulatory framework as well in order to facilitate these measures.

El Salvador is a highly vulnerable country that has suffered the human and economic impact of a string of tropical storms in the past few years… Meanwhile, the SDGs have many climate-related components, as well as a dedicated climate goal. What are some of the ways that the SDGs will influence the planning and practice of development in El Salvador in the coming years?

The SDGs are already beginning to be incorporated into the planning processes of different areas. This is a process that is just beginning, and I cannot say that it is widely established. It is expected to gather more speed in the coming years. One of the important effects is envisioning is that, unlike the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), the SDGs have a more holistic approach and reflect interconnections within different issues. In this sense, they are likely to foster joint initiatives, both at nationally and at regional levels.

 

References and further reading:

Read more about CDKN’s work in the country on the El Salvador page (in English or Spanish)

El Salvador is satisfied with the results of the universal climate change agreement in Paris (in Spanish)

Environmental sustainability and vulnerability cabinet (in Spanish)

Image: maize and beans for sale, El Salvador, courtesy Neil Palmer, CIAT.

 

[1] The Bonn Challenge is a global aspiration to restore 150 million hectares of the world’s deforested and degraded lands by 2020.

by: CDKN Global, Miren Gutierrez | on: 8am, May 2, 2016

El Salvador, Latin America and the CaribbeanAdaptation, Climate change adaptation, Climate change impacts, Climate compatible development strategies and plans, Climate finance, Climate mitigation,Forestry and REDDclimate vulnerability, common but differentiated responsibilities, emissions, human population growth, specific financing mechanisms, temperature, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, water resourcesBlog postNews, events, opinions and features

OPINION: “You cannot turn back from Paris” – Sam Bickersteth

Sam Bickersteth, Chief Executive of CDKN, has led this global alliance of southern and northern organisations delivering innovative solutions for climate compatible development since 2011. Meanwhile, CDKN has become a leading global, multi-donor funded programme supporting developing country decision-makers. It has designed and delivered over 400 technical assistance, research and knowledge management projects in 70 countries. From his privileged observer’s position, Sam talks with Miren Gutierrez about the Paris agreement and its implications for developing countries.

What have you learned from your experience of leading CDKN?

How long have you got? Let me try to pull out the top three learning experiences…I´ve learned that there is something distinct about the climate change challenge in relation with other development challenges. There is something new and different about it in the sense that is global, and that the science has been evolving as we had to tackle the problem. I´ve learned that the urgency is far greater than I first realised. It is huge. I don’t think I, or any of us, knew that at the beginning, frankly. So there is something about the challenge of managing the science-policy interface, which is at the heart of what we do, while having to tackle problems, which has made it particularly challenging and interesting.

Allied to that is the importance of linking international processes to local processes. That has become very clear in the relationship between the UNFCCC process and national development. Probably more starkly than I´ve ever seen in other areas of development that I´ve worked on, the local and national and global can be mutually reinforcing.

The third area of learning is really around building an alliance, which requires a lot of skills and a constant effort to hear the diversity of voice and perspective, while having a sense of direction.   It is an ongoing process. That is why I am still in the job, because I find it incredibly enjoyable and fascinating. We created a fabulous team from many parts of the world, who have common sense of the challenge of integrating climate action into ongoing development.

How do you view developing countries’ domestic processes of negotiating the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)? CDKN has assisted some of these countries.  

The INDCs were bottom-up processes, and they were a recognition that top-down processes were never going to work very well in climate change. Copenhagen was an attempt at a top-down process, and by and large was not so successful. The INDC process, instead, enabled everyone to be included. And beyond all expectations so many parties, virtually all parties, put forward their INDCs, which was great.

How do you think the emission targets in developing countries’ INDCs will be delivered? India, for example, submitted a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33-35% per unit of GDP, conditional on finance being made available. India is one of the large emitting countries (in absolute terms). How is this going to be monitored? And will sufficient finance materialise?

There wasn’t a distinct template for the INDCs – partly because the approach taken was so inclusive. This means the INDCs are not directly comparable with each other. This is definitely a problem, because for the Paris Agreement to be effective, the rules, the transparency and the reporting must hold all countries to account. If there is no comparator of what emissions are, it is going to be really hard.

CDKN, amongst others, provided some guidance as to what the INDCs could include, and now we are providing guidance in the implementation. It continues to be an open and inclusive approach. At national level, it is sovereign governments who will be making these difficult decisions about shifting towards low-carbon, climate-resilient economic growth paths. This cannot be done by a remote process headquartered in Bonn, Germany. That was never going to work.

Although the bottom-up INDC process was a good one, we know that the INDCs do not add up to the less than 2 degrees of global warming we are collectively aiming for. It could have been worse – emissions commitments could have still set us on the road to 3.5 degrees; while it is between 2.7 and 3 degrees. What a huge gap we have to fill[1].

There are also questions about baselines from which you measure emissions reductions: sometimes, baselines are not so good. Land use is not captured in many countries’ emissions baselines, while it is one of the major sources and sinks for greenhouse gas emissions. The data is weak or lacking in many countries. For instance, Bangladesh has a really good INDC, but was not able to include land use as the data was not good enough yet.

So there is a huge goal to climb in making INDCs good enough. But they are a point of departure.

Finance for climate action in developing countries will come partly from international sources. India has been quite explicit about the requirement for that. But India is one of the biggest economic powers in the world, and has huge resources itself: some of these resources will be channelled into developing non-fossil fuel and alternative sources of energy.

On India’s outlook for climate mitigation action, specifically: there are some very positive ambitions and national initiatives underway to deliver solar power, other renewables and energy efficiency in India (see CDKN’s India page). We also see how renewable technology developments world wide are driving down the costs of renewables and achieving parity in the cost of power production compared to fossil fuel sources – this can only benefit a giant country like India with hundreds of millions of people living in conditions of unacceptable poverty.

For instance, look at the exciting developments right now in Morocco. The government has just tendered for huge wind farms and the bidders are offering to produce energy at 3 cents per kilowatt/hour, which is super cheap. And they have launched the world’s largest solar scheme there. You are getting big solar PV (photovoltaic) systems in the Middle East and Dubai at 5 cents per kilowatt/hour. (These are both in the range of power production costs for gas- and coal-fired power plants.) The changing cost of technology is shifting the curve and creating the potential for renewables to truly compete with fossil fuels in the power sector.

The only thing I would add is a very interesting aspect of gender dimensions in India. I heard the India’s Minister of Environment speak on this topic in Paris. CDKN supported the mainstreaming of gender considerations into the state action plans in a number of Indian states. That is really important because of the differential impacts of air pollution on men and women, the differential access to finance for men and women, and the potential for climate compatible development solutions to contribute to gender equality – rather than entrench inequality.

What is your take on the Paris summit overall, then? 

The outcome of the Paris agreement was better that it might have been. And sets a very important tone. You cannot turn back from Paris. All the parties agreed, and there was a sense that the private sector had engaged in a way that never had before. It is a point from which we see the possibility to shift things. And you can see transformation in the energy systems taking place here in the UK and Europe; they are closing down coal stations week after week; you see renewables taking 30%, 40%, 100% of the entire daily supply of electricity systems in parts of Europe. It is really transforming things.

But there will be lots of countries and processes that will try to block the speed of action we must achieve in moving to climate compatible development. We must accelerate action: building the rules and the accountability, shifting investments, engaging the private sector even more. Still, awareness in society of the climate challenge is only the ‘tip of iceberg’.

Even if all developed countries do all they can, that still isn´t enough to keep us globally within safe limit of 2 degrees of warming. And that is why developing countries have to join the low carbon revolution, too.

Are you optimistic? Will we manage to keep temperatures below the 2 degrees threshold?

I am really optimistic about this transformation we are seeing in the energy systems; but I am deeply troubled about the challenge if we look at land use systems. For example, 40% of Peru´s emissions come from deforestation. For years, civil society, governments and industries have debated deforestation in this region; yet still illegal mining continues to destroy huge areas of forest in the Peruvian Amazon, and as many people are being killed in those conflicts as has ever been the case.

The Governments of Ethiopia and Rwanda are demonstrating what the level of ambition should be around sustainable land use management and they are really shifting policies and practices. Sixty four percent of emissions reduction being planned in Ethiopia will come from a huge effort to improve land use cover and watershed management, aside from investments in hydro and improvements in its transport system. But in other parts of the world the level of reforestation, regeneration and avoided deforestation is just a massive task.

Even if we tackle forestry, we don´t know what to do about livestock. The big existential threat is that we still eat lots of meat. Global meat consumption is projected to grow by 75% by 2050.  We start to see technology to improve things, but we need to shift behaviours as well. Although it is just such a long way to go, we can reduce emissions from this sector by up to one third by cutting down on the meat we eat; or we can go further if we become vegetarians.

How do we sustainably feed 9 million people? What does sustainable intensification of agriculture and forestry look like? These are really big challenges ahead.

I think there is a possibility that the world will warm beyond the 2 degree threshold and then retreat below it again. We are likely to see many more storms and more extreme events, global temperatures will continue to increase, tipping points will be reached… where is it going to go? It is going to go into sea level rise and extreme events. It seems to me implausible right now that we don´t go over 2 degrees. But I think it is plausible we can manage this, although many states in the frontline, including the UK, will face major threats. We have to get to zero net carbon emissions by 2050 or thereabouts (see UNEP’s analysis in its latest Emissions Gap Report).

As more business opportunities emerge in clean development, investment will happen in an extraordinarily short period of time. Actually, technology is moving fast to improve this. For example this huge Moroccan solar plant continues to generate power nearly 24 hours a day as it stores up the heat in water at night. Human ingenuity is going to do a lot, but many people are going to be hit in the process. That is why building resilience is such a major priority.

What about next steps after Paris?

The key words here are ratification implementation and integration. From 22^nd April countries are invited to ratify the Paris agreement at the UN Headquarters in New York. There have been encouraging signs that the U.S. and China may ratify this year, but so far only three Pacific states, on the frontline of climate change –Marshall Islands, Fiji and Palau— have acceded. It will require 55 countries whose emissions total 55% of global greenhouse gases to enable the Treaty to come into effect and, with many short term political challenges, significant groups like the EU may not be in a position to ratify until 2017.

As for implementation, several of the Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States presented ambitious INDCs. Ethiopia has set a target to reduce emissions by 64% versus what its 2030 ‘business as usual’ levels would be, while the Marshall Islands INDC pledged to reduce emissions by 32% below 2010 levels by 2025. It is important that progressive, “lighthouse” countries make an early start to demonstrate the economic and social benefits of implementation.

Countries agreed in Paris to review targets and ‘ratchet’ them up to higher levels of ambition every five years. This means that NDCs are now a pressing implementation issue for developing countries. Review means they have to progress their commitments each time.

With limited capacity and paucity of data the reporting may place a burden on climate vulnerable countries unless external support is forthcoming. Therefore, international support will be important.

In addition, the INDCs to date have most set out the “low hanging fruit” – the easier to achieve emissions reductions opportunities. In subsequent five year cycles towards 2030, ramping up ambition effectively will be a really challenging process, which will need further  support.

Integration comes next. NDCs have been a powerful tool for engaging all ministries across government and all sectors of society. This had been important for building strong domestic support for climate change nationally, which in turn itself is an important foundation for international diplomatic efforts.

The current ratification process in each country is an opportunity to engage a wide cross section of policy makers, public opinion and legislators around climate goals.

Further reading:

Climate Funds Update – to understand investment flows

CDKN’s Guide to INDCs 

[1] According to a report published by UNEP, the “INDCs represent GHG emission reductions of 4 to 6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GtCO₂e/yr) in 2030 compared to projected emissions under current policy trajectories… Efforts to tackle climate change, including those taken before the Paris agreement and full implementation of the INDCs, could cut up to 11 GtCO₂e from projected emissions in 2030.  This is however around half of the total required to reach the global emission level of 42 GtCO₂e in 2030 consistent with having a likely chance (>66 percent) of staying below the 2°C target in 2100.”

by: CDKN Global, Sam Bickersteth | on: 10am, April 18, 2016

https://cdkn.org/2016/04/opinion-you-cannot-turn-back-from-paris-sam-bickersteth/?loclang=en_gb

OPINION: After Paris – “Going from intended to implemented, that is the question” says Margaret Kamau, Kenya

Kenya aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2030 relative to Business As Usual. This goal is subject to international support in the form of finance, investment, technology development and transfer, and capacity building. Margaret Kamau, CDKN´s Country Engagement and Project Manager talks to Miren Gutiérrez about what this target means for her country. This is part of a CDKN series on implementing the Paris Agreement: read more at www.cdkn.org/after-paris-perspectives

 

The Paris Agreement created an ambitious mandate for the global community. Does it change the national conversation in Kenya about action on climate change? If so, how?

Well before, for much of 2015, there has been quite a momentum in Kenya around preparations for COP21[Editor: 21^st Conference of the Parties for the UNFCCC], the INDCs [Climate plans which countries submitted to the conference] and the Paris Agreement. A number of stakeholders were quite involved in the ‘road to COP’ process. I think that this kind of momentum has carried on in 2016.

From meetings that we had this February and March, we can tell there is a bit of uncertainty about “what next” with regards to the Paris Agreement. But the Government of Kenya is taking steps to clarify this. For example, in mid-February there was a meeting on the post-Paris situation with a wide range of civil society organisations and other stakeholders, where the government was able to explain what the next steps were and what the COP21 meant.

In two weeks, there is another stakeholder consultation session, now addressed towards developing the next steps after Paris. Now we are waiting to hear what the government has planned and what they need support for. I know they are also looking at the implications for Kenya’s growth and sustainable development. So I think the main influence COP21 has had is creating momentum before, during and after the event.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon visits a geothermal power facility in Kenya; courtesy UNEP.

Are these consultations with civil society and stakeholders binding in any way, has the government been gathering their feedback, or are they just informative?

They have been mainly for information purposes, not to get feedback or to pass clear information on what the next steps are. But I believe the intention of the government is that the next meeting is to be more action oriented. Kenya’s civil society has challenged the government to take action to implementing the agreement. But not openly in the media.

As for coverage, media articles and news stories on climate change tended to be published before and during COP21, with different sectoral approaches. Since the Paris conference, we haven’t seen as much. Although that is not necessarily negative…

Kenya indeed submitted an ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contribution’ (INDC). What will it take to get from ‘intended’ to ‘implemented’? What are the big opportunities and challenges?

That is the question. In terms of implementation, we believe the next step the government should take is to lay out the key priority actions in the climate action plan, and take them forward. There is the realisation that the actions contained in the INDC have been ongoing actions. So it is about accelerating investment to support implementation in those areas.

The big opportunities are first at a sectoral level. The energy sector, the forestry sector, the transport sector have all seen significant growth in the last few years. So those would be quick wins: sectors where there has been ongoing work.

In the energy sector, for example, there is already significant investment [in low carbon energy], but there is room for more. The next steps would be: identifying the actions, the key people and institutions to take those actions and accessing the finance required.

Another opportunity would be leveraging the momentum that the Paris Agreement has created to make sure that all stakeholders are aware of it, and employing this ongoing interest and buy-in for activities.

Finance presents both an opportunity and a challenge. We have different financing opportunities, such as Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which may be accessed to implement the country’s NDC. A Kenyan entity has just been accredited as the National Management Authority to access direct funding from the GCF. These are opportunities that the government is already taking.

NAMAs are being developed for the bus rapid transit system, another one for a grid of renewable energy and waste management. A geothermal NAMA was developed and is explored in CDKN’s Inside Story on Climate Compatible Development.

In addition, there is bilateral and multilateral funding: the governments of the UK and Japan and institutions such as the World Bank are funding elements of the NDC as well.

In the finance arena, the Government of Kenya has faced hurdles in producing investment plans and proposals that actually attract funding. Here, some investment may be needed in enhancing capacity for proposal development. A current CDKN project is supporting the government to write an adaptation proposal for the GCF. We are responding to a direct government request to help them fill a gap.

Other challenges include coordination. Over the past years, I think the government has improved its coordinated approach towards climate change and development. This has been particularly evident recently during the INDC process. But coordination across government remains a challenge which they continue to address.

Skyline of Nairobi, Kenya’s capital; courtesy Jonathan Stonehouse

The Paris Agreement calls for limiting average global temperature rise well below 2C, as close to 1.5C as possible. Kenya’s emissions are not huge, but they are growing fast – what hope to see economic growth and human development with lowered emissions in the specific case of Kenya?  

Using the energy sector is a good example. We have seen a significant increase in investments in the renewable energy sector, particularly in geothermal and wind power. About 50% of Kenya´s electricity[1] comes from renewable sources, and this is a number that is increasing on a daily basis. We think that this it is not actually hampering economic growth, because before geothermal power became the focus, hydroelectric power was being produced from dams. Obviously, that meant that during the power crisis electricity was quite erratic because of the reliance on hydropower [Editor: linked to reduced rainfall and river levels – the CDKN Inside Story explains further]. So the focus on this new generation of renewables is actually supporting growth because it is a more reliable source of power and businesses now have more reliable sources of power.

In agriculture, initiatives such as the one led by COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) to reduce agricultural emissions across Kenya and several other African countries will help combat climate change while addressing food security, from the policy level to the farm level.

We have seen initiatives and interventions to improve forest cover and to improve forest conservation resulting in a better environment for people and the communities living around forests. And this translates to improved human development and better economic growth. So far it has not limited economic growth either.

This will continue being a trend for the next couple of years. We still have untapped solar and wind resources. We are expected to have a large 300 megawatt solar farm in the next few years, which will only reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and promote economic growth.

Technology hub, Kenya; courtesy UNDP.

If you check most INDCs from developing countries their emission reduction targets are subject to technology development, international climate finance and capacity building. What would happen if these ‘means of implementation’ do not flow? 

Countries like Kenya have taken some steps towards building internal capacity and using domestic financial national resources to put in place climate change initiatives. This is evident in some government-enabled food security projects, as well as in the setting up of research institutions, industrial research institutions, with technology development. If the means are not put forward, it is not to say that countries such as Kenya will not take action anyway. But the view is that action will be slower because obviously there are other pressing needs that the domestic budget needs to serve. It won’t be a large allocation for a long time, so this will slow the process in achieving sustainable development.

Why are some countries more successful than others in attracting international resources to support climate compatible development? Does their ability to negotiate have anything to do with it? How would you rate Kenya´s performance so far?

Definitely the ability of a country to negotiate in the international arena plays a huge role in attracting climate finance. But also, one thing that stands out looking at these countries have taken initiatives on their own. Brazil, Mexico and Morocco may have allocated domestic resources towards climate change initiatives. And this can help make a case before they go and negotiate climate finance. I believe part of making the case is showing what you can do with our own resources. I think that these have been countries that have been successful in doing this, and when they go to international arena they are not just asking for money. They are saying: this is what we have done and now we need more money to grow this pilot initiate.

Finally, Kenya not very well known for its negotiation power, but I think being part of the African Group of Negotiators has helped Kenya and fellow African countries to try to negotiate collectively. But [its influence] could be improved with further international support.

The SDGs have many climate-related components, as well as a dedicated climate goal. What are some of the ways that the SDGs will influence the planning and practice of development in Kenya in the coming years?

There has not been a lot of communication on the SDGs locally, since the New York summit last September. CDKN helped convene an SDG dialogue process in 2014 – to provide a platform for Kenyan voices in developing the goals. And what came out of this process is that Kenya would need more integrated planning, not just for key economic sectors, making integrated planning a habit if the SDGs are to be achieved. Kenya is also in the process of writing up a green economy strategy, which looks at how to maintain sustainable development while growing the economy.

 

Image: Kenya, courtesy DFID.

[1] Kenya is looking to geothermal energy to power its growth and reduce reliance on imports. As of 2015, geothermal accounted for 51% percent of Kenya’s energy mix (up from only 13% in 2010). Kenya´s also investing on wind, with Africa’s largest wind farm (310 MW) set to provide another 20% of the country´s installed electricity generating capacity. Those two combined will help Kenya generate 71% of its electricity with renewables in the future, according to CleanTechnica.

by: CDKN Global, Miren Gutierrez, Margaret Kamau | on: 12pm, March 27, 2016

https://cdkn.org/2016/03/opinion-after-paris-going-from-intended-to-implemented-that-is-the-question-says-margaret-kamau-kenya/?loclang=en_gb