Cancun – an important step to cutting carbon emissions or just more hot air?

I must admit that, upon reading that the Cancun summit had produced an agreement, my first reaction was one of surprise. After being told by everyone from Ban Ki Moon to European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, that the talks were headed for disaster, expectations were low going into the final days.

Reaction to the deal has been mixed, ranging from Oxfam’s belief that “There is now hope for action to help the millions of poor people who are already struggling to survive the effects of climate change.” to journalist and author Fred Pearce’s view that “In the cold light of morning, many will agree that their diplomatic triumph offered little tangible progress to further reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. During two weeks of talks nobody upped their promises to curb emissions.” (on http://www.newscientist.com).

So, what’s the truth of the agreement? Truth, of course, is highly subjective and our analysis of Cancun will depend largely upon whether we judge it in relation to the scientific or a political reality.

Scientifically, the deal certainly falls short. As the Bolivian delegation pointed out, even in the highly unlikely situation of all countries putting the rather weak language of the agreement into effect,  it will still not result in a global temperature drop of 4 degrees celsius, which all the science says is unsustainable. There are many problems with the deal itself, not least the derailing tactics of Japan and the lack of strong national programmes in the USA and China.

The scientific reality is opposed by the political reality, however. This has always been, and always will be, the challenge in building a sustainable relationship between humans and the earth. Unfortunately, climate change is not “beyond politics” as many of us believe it should be; rather environmental issues exist within a much larger political climate.

In these terms, Cancun did make significant progress. Drawing up any global agreement is hugely complicated, involving nations with radically different priorities and world views. Cancun achieved what Copenhagen failed to do in building a feeling of consensus amongst many countries, largely due to the efforts of the Mexican Presidency to conduct the talks in a transparent and inclusive manner. Some of the barriers between the “haves” and the “have-nots” were eroded, if not broken down.

More than any concrete commitments to carbon emission or conservation, which are still largely missing, the achievement of Cancun may be more in a shift of attitude in political circles. Whilst in Copenhagen, the talks moved from huge optimism to complete failure, Cancun followed the opposite trajectory. A build up of extreme pessimism gave way to an unexpected last minute diplomatic offensive, which resulted in the agreement being reached.

It is unrealistic to expect a final solution to come out of these talks. But the scientific and political realities of climate change have moved closer together. As Keith Allot, WWF’s head of climate change, commented,

“Despite some last minute hiccups, countries leave here with a renewed sense of goodwill and some sense of purpose.”

This unity contrasts with the fractured political landscape which emerged from Copenhagen. Yes, the agreement falls short of what is needed. Yes, the language is high on promises and low on actual commitments. But, it does provide us with something to take to Durban next year. Whilst Cancun has not resolved the debate, the terms of the debate have now changed, and the starting point for the next summit is set higher.

The negative reaction of groups such as Friend’s of the Earth is valid and scientifically sound. We have not resolved the conflict between the scientific and political realities, but perhaps Cancun will be seen as an important step towards doing this. Whilst concrete targets and commitments are massively important, these can only be achieved in the right political climate and require a common attitude and common priorities from all parties. Cancun, perhaps, has moved us towards achieving this first step.

Related Articles

• You: Cancun meeting reaches climate change agreement (nation.com.pk)
• Cancun Climate Conference: what it all means (telegraph.co.uk)
• Cancun climate talks end with modest steps (cbc.ca)
• Cancun climate talks end with modest steps – CBC.ca (news.google.com)
• Cancun deal could help climate efforts at home: U.S. (reuters.com)
• Cancun Package Merely Prevents Collapse and Leaves Kyoto Protocol on Life Support (yubanet.com)

Leaders sign agreement to save the tiger – a view from the Youth Summit

First of all, I must apologise for the lack of daily blogs from the Youth Tiger Forum – we worked from early morning till late at night every day, with hardly a spare moment. One night, I did sit down to write, but fell fast asleep and woke up the next morning next to my laptop.

After all our efforts at the Youth Forum, I can only imagine the massive amount of work done by everyone involved in the leaders’ summit, from the politicians themselves to NGO’s like WWF. The last few days really have been the culmination of years of planning. Whatever else one thinks about Putin, as far as tiger conservation goes, he’s done a lot of good. Russia is the only country on which the population of tigers has actually increased in recent times – from just a couple of dozen a few to over 400 – and the public backing of a major world leader is a big step forward. Apart from the summit itself, the dedication shown by conservationists all over the world for many, many years is quite staggering – something I really came to appreciate through conversations with experts and delegates from other countries over the past few days. People have been critical about tiger conservation, correctly pointing to the declining numbers as evidence that more action is needed. The point that critics miss, however, is that we don’t know how much worse the situation would have been without this conservation work. Far from being ineffective, it’s only because of this that we have any tigers left at all. Conservationists, campaigners, and NGO’s such as WWF have been fighting against the odds for decades. Speaking to those directly involved, I realised how much of a struggle they face. The hope for the Petersburg Summit was that these efforts would be supported at the highest level with funding and internation political commitments. So, did it deliver?

In comparison with other high profile international summits of this kind, such as Copenhagen, the answer has to be yes. The 13 tiger range countries, along with the World Bank, have agreed to contribute $350 million over the next seven years to tiger conservation. Whilst I was hugely disappointed with the late withdrawal of the UK delegation, the news of £100 million towards international forestry conservation is hugely encouraging. It’s estimated that, in total, global tiger conservation needs $80 million a year. Whilst the St Petersburg agreement doesn’t cover this completely, it is the kind of large-scale, definitive financial investment tiger conservation needs – and will be in addition to all the existing investment. It was also extremely pleasing to hear the World Bank state that they would no longer fund any development projects which threatened tiger territory.

Whilst this is encouraging, I have yet to find an account of exactly how this money will be spent, or precise plans for achieving the goal of doubling tiger numbers by 2022. I also wonder what what will happen after 2017, when the $350 million agreement ends. Without proper implementation and strong, measurable targets, any agreement will be ineffective. I’ll be keeping in touch with delegates from the tiger range countries, many of whom work directly in tiger conservation, to see whether they feel any real benefits from the summit.

I also think we have to see a stronger statement regarding the trade of tiger parts for “medicinal use”. This is a lucrative business throughout the tiger range, with India and China providing the largest markets. The difficultly in tackling this issue lies in the fact that much of the trade takes place in areas outside of government control, as is the case in Myanmar along the Chinese border. China itself seems unwilling to even discuss the problem – the conversation ends with a statement that trade in tiger parts has been illegal in China since 1993. Whilst this is true, all the facts show that a large trade still occurs within, or on the borders of, China, and we need the Chinese government to acknowledge this.

Attending the Youth Summit was an amazing experience. We each have big plans for how we can contribute to saving the tiger when we return home – I’ll be posting details of the plans for the UK soon. Whatever the eventual outcome of the leaders’ summit, we hope to create an international youth network which will work on specific issues in each country. I feel we’ve all learned a huge amount from one another and that together we can make a real difference to the future of the tiger. As with the leaders’ summit, the proof of our work will be in our actions, however. We’re all grateful for, and conscious of, the huge amount of time, effort and money that WWF put into organising the Youth Summit and we each feel a responsibility to make sure that this was a worthy investment.

Right now, I’m exhausted. Non stop treks, talks and speeches have left me worn out. Sitting in Moscow airport, waiting to fly to London, I’ve totally lost track of my time zone and when I last slept (it didn’t really happen on the last night of the Youth Summit!). All I can say is that it was an amazing experience.   More to follow after a good night’s sleep!

Tiger Conservation in Action

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Our last two days have been spent in the field, visiting two very different tiger reserves. Both attempt to find practical ways to link wildlife conservation with human activities.

The first visit was to Orlinoe Model Hunting Estate. Here, the reserve manages hunting in a sustainable way, using the income to run the park and conserve the wildlife. Whilst conservationists and hunters may seem to have conflicting goals, the two in fact have a great deal in common. Like conservationists, hunters want to see natural habitats preserved and species’ population levels maintained. To ensure that the animals are not over-hunted, Orlinoe operates a strict licensing system, only issuing permits once the animal population levels have reached a certain level.

This level is determined by another inhabitant of the reserve – Orlinoe is home to 6 adult tigers. With each tiger requiring around two hundred prey animals, hunting is only allowed of animals above this level. Tigers, of course, are never hunting – nor has the park lost a single tiger to poaching in its 35 year history. WWF supports the reserve, providing funding and scientific expertise to ensure that the park is managed for the maximum benefit to the tigers, whilst hunters see an added value to stalking prey alongside one of nature’s most iconic predators.