Transcript Copenhagen Accord

The Copenhagen glass;
half full or half empty
and where is sustainability going…
FDIN - January 2010
Alan KNIGHT
Today we will…
•
•
•
•
•
Gather feedback from Copenhagen… what happened and why?
Thoughts from policy thinkers and makers
Hear from some organisations will be doing as a result of Copenhagen.
Use all of us to generate dip-sticks on topics using live voting buttons.
Generate thoughts as pointers for Food & Drink Federation / FDIN and
you!.
• Starting thought – Food supply chain = 20% of UK Carbon emissions
• Stop Press – WWF say as a 30% of UK carbons emissions
Today’s agenda
Copenhagen Ambitions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agree man-made climate change is a problem – legally binding agreement to
mitigate emissions
All developed and developing countries – agree to limit the rise in global
temperature to 2° (above pre-industrial levels) by 2050 by fixing CO at 450ppm
Interim targets by 2020 (with different paths for developing and developed)
Main driver of change being a price on carbon through “cap and trade”
All countries’ emissions verified by UN
Developing countries will provide financial support to developing countries for
mitigation, adaptation costs – funds coming from cap and trade proceeds
Bespoke support for rainforests – REDD ready by 2010 – 2015
Interim emergency forest package £25 billion between now and 2015 (Informal
working Group on Interim Finance / a key message from Prince of Wales)
Bespoke single global scheme for shipping and aviation
Outcome – the Copenhagen Accord
•
“Accord” rather than legally binding (only 28 countries signed)
•
•
•
•
Climate change is a problem, man-made – and something must be done
Agreed to limit the rise in global temperature to 2° but no Co2 target
Developed countries verified by UN, developing = self verification
Developed countries donate $30 billion by 2012 to developing countries
for mitigation, adaptation and forests
• From 2012 to 2020 - $100 billion a year via a Green Climate Fund (panel to
be established on process)
NB - Science says that current Co2 reduction projections means a rise as high
as high as 3.5°
Common reasons for outcome
• Fundamental issue of “development versus carbon” not resolved
• Historical lack of engagement from USA, China, India, other developing
countries
• Danish chair – lacked diplomatic / chairing skills
• Too much debate on procedure of meeting – rather than big issues
• Difficulty of reaching consensus with 192 world leaders
• China – more tactical than people expected
• China – used embedded carbon of global production as a sticking point
• Fundamental lack of trust
• Tuvalu / Maldives / Sudan - too much attention (Tuvalu - 12k population).
• A last minute call for a 1.5° limit by small islands states – too much, too
late, a spoiler.
Half-full observations… Part 1
• Questionable difference between a political and legally binding deal – you
cannot arrest Canada for failing on Kyoto!
• A global agreement on limit to 2 degrees (without Co2 concentration is
significant)
• Climate change created biggest gathering of world leaders
• A new global dynamic – Africa / China etc are players
• Forests / REDD – now in secured in the debate plus some money!
• Adaptation funds - done
Half-full observations… Part 2
• All existing initiatives are safe and most developed economies have a Co2
reduction plan in place before Copenhagen
• 17 nations = 90% of emissions - in the accord
• Skeptics had a voice but little influence
• Many countries we pleased with outcome - USA, China…
• UN flaws usefully exposed – time for a different way
– E.g. - More reliance on G8 / G20 to drive agenda
• Enough was said to be a turning point
What now…
• To be on Accord from day 1 - country submit roadmaps by January 31st
2010 – (NOW EXTENDED)
• Ongoing UN lobbing for other countries to sign accord
• Too early to sense next steps from NGOs / climate movement
• Many want more numbers, deeper and more binding commitments
• All eyes on USA Climate - Energy Bill (Ditto Australia)
• National initiative’s – business as usual – UK compulsory reporting / wind
farms etc
• Role of business / sector agreements – getting traction
• COP 16 – Mexico = December
• For movement – a refreshingly honest period of refection / mirror gazing
But also - where is the broader SD debate going?
Broader SD debate - five big challenges
• Climate change
• Living in a “three planet economy” and growing (this includes
peak oil, rainforest, food security)
• Poverty trap still exists
• Poverty illness is being replaced by consumption illness (more
people are obese than starving)
• Economics being questioned more!
Growing recognition of system thinking and connections
14
Sustainability Aspiration.. = 9
billion, low carbon, one planet
versions of these……
Think piece for SDC
15
Elements of a sustainable lifestyles
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
I have the ability to manage my own wellbeing
I have enough to live on - and I live within my financial limits
I only use supply chains where everyone benefits
I only use low carbon energy in a prudent way
I am active in a vibrant community
I live in a high trust society in which I talk with, rather than at people
I have found the right balance between technology and simplicity
My leaders (political and business) have courage
We use much less stuff
Economics works with nature and is less reliant on growth – a greener form of
economics
(Relate above to Copenhagen narrative)
What does this mean for our sector?
•
•
•
•
•
What issues / points of traction will most shape our industry
From our operations
Customer behaviour – even customer diet
Our entire supply chain – to the soil and forests and oceans
Simplest tool for supply chain has been verification /
certification and labeling… even that is complex!
Certification overload
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FSC
PEFC
Palm Oil
Soya
Sugar
Cotton
Rainforest Alliance
Organic
(local and / or fair trade)
Plus biofuel (RSB)
•
•
•
•
MSC
Farmed Fish
Carbon label
(marine algae for fuel)
And many many more…
(fair trade, recycling,
nutritional…)
So what’s “Hot”
• By Hot I mean
– The issue is hot enough
to shape the food /
drinks sector medium to
long term strategy…
– Dip stick
– Not a ranking, all can be
hot!
– Time to add your own
over lunch
“Hotspots” – what will make a useful contribution to reducing
carbon (possible list, to be edited on the day)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Rainforests
Land use (global and UK)
Operational issues (efficiency in operations / logistics)
Price on carbon
Role of fridges and freezing in supply chain
Use of nitrogen / chemicals in intense agriculture
Carbon foot-printing - embedded carbon (packaging, supply chain etc)
Customer facing carbon Label
Food loss (supply chain) and waste (consumer)
Special meat / dairy focus – “changing consumption patterns”
Broader low carbon diet
Soil integrity - ability to grow food
Soil and peat as a carbon sink
Water (national strategies and embedded) (peak water)
Adaptation to climate change
Food security (food availability)
Managing certification overload
(others ??? – offsetting, packaging, skeptics pushback)
AND NOW SOME MORE BACKGROUND
ON THESE HOT SPOT NOMINATIONS…