Environment

Taking eco action
Copenhagen Accord makes no commitments
Where to next from Copenhagen?
NES look into tree cutting
Regional environmental workshop wraps up

Participants on a two-week environmental course will today put what they have learned so far into presenting their own ecosystem-based management (EBM) plan for a given scenario.

Melanie King, who organised the course, says the course will equip participants with the tools and techniques, and areas they will need to consider when developing a management plan in terms of coastal and marine resources.

She says ecosystem-based management can be seen as considering everything that can have an impact on the coast – from the mountains right down to the sea.

EBM planning for coastal or marine resources, says King, takes into account not only land-based activities but also the political, economic, social and traditional framework that influences development in a community.

“They won’t learn everything about EBM on this course but the most important thing is to take back what they have learned and implement it in their own countries.”

Having the course on Rarotonga has been helpful, says King, as participants have been able to tap into the experiences and issues which have been dealt with in the past by agencies like marine resources and the national environment service.

The recent tropical cyclone warnings, she adds, have also brought to the fore the impact of natural disasters on coastal communities, and the importance of risk management tools in EBM.

King is with Global Change Institute and the GEF-World Bank funded Coal Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management (CRTR) Program at the University of Queensland which helped to sponsor the course.

There are 20 participants from overseas on the course which concludes tomorrow, Friday.

There are also four participants from the outer islands.

Presenters at the course/seminar were: Adina Abeles, Center for Ocean Solutions; Jo Akroyd, consultant; professor Meg Caldwell, Center for Ocean Solutions; Geoff Dews, consultant; Keri Herman, national environment service; professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Global Change Institute & Centre for Marine Studies; professor Richard Kenchington, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security; Melanie King; Geoff Mavromatis (consultant); Dr Ron Neller, consultant; Dorothy Solomona, ministry of marine resources; Phillip Strickland, national environment service; Koroa Raumea, national environment service.

- Moana Moeka’a

Getting noticed at COP15 – from left Climate Action Network chairman David Ngatae, Myra Moeka’a-Patai, Trevor Pitt and Liz Wright-Koteka. 09121531

Government has decided to continue lobbying for a binding climate change deal to be made at this year’s United Nations meeting in Cancun, Mexico.

Like other small island states the Cook Islands will not support the Copenhagen Accord – the highly criticised document created by 25 countries at the United Nations climate change conference in December.

Two weeks ago cabinet agreed that the Cook Islands would stick with the stance of the 46 Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and push for a binding agreement to be made at the next conference this year.

While the Accord indicated developed countries would provide US$10 billion from 2010-2012 towards climate change funding, the Cook Islands delegation believes the chance of seeing real benefits for our country from this are slim and probably won’t happen until the end of next year.

The funding has already been criticised as very small – it will be divided between 140 countries and is likely to be loan-based. Right now the country is limited in being able to take on new loans when it already has a high level of debt.

In December prime minister and environment minister Jim Marurai returned from Copenhagen reportedly extremely disappointed with the failure of the many countries present to reach a legally binding agreement – a disappointment shared by other Pacific island nations.

The purpose of COP15 was to look at ways to increase international efforts to combat climate change through the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions by shifting to an energy efficient development path, reducing deforestation and agricultural emissions, and enhancing adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change, together with finance and technology in order to complete negotiations on a new international agreement on climate change to come into force when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period comes to an end in 2012.

In its report to cabinet two weeks ago the country delegation noted that negotiations for a Kyoto replacement were extended for a year at Copenhagen. COP15 also agreed that all texts worked on over the past two years by the ad hoc working groups remain on the negotiating table.

The delegation said the third outcome – the Copenhagen Accord– was a politically binding outcome, of questionable legal status, and its relationship to the formal UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) process has yet to be fully defined.

The delegation advised that the Cook Islands not support the Copenhagen Accord at this stage because it did not address the key issues crucial to our survival.

The country’s position prior to Copenhagen has not changed and so it will continue to ask for the same commitments from developed nations at the next COP in December.

Two major negotiating groups will be used to convey the country’s requests. One of the UNFCCC ad hoc working groups works to ensure that the major emitters such as the United States and Japan are included under a climate change regime; the other looks at ways to ensure that countries commit to reducing their greenhouse gas emissions for another five year period from 2012 – 2017 under the Kyoto Protocol.

AOSIS has drafted a protocol and amendments to the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen and it is proposed that it now tables these with the UNFCCC secretariat to ensure a legally binding agreement comes out of the COP16 in Cancun, Mexico.

The Cook Islands delegation to COP15 has recommended that government send diplomatic notes to some of the countries it has diplomatic relationships with such as Australia, NZ, France, China, India and the European Union.

“The purpose of this exercise is to restate our position on record and to engage in discussions with these partners with a view to influence some of their thinking to address our concerns.

Already we are receiving requests from developed countries seeking our views on the Copenhagen Accord,” says the delegation report to cabinet.

Meanwhile, key agencies will begin work on a way forward on climate change adaptation and cutting greenhouse gases through energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives.

“Working together of the various agencies and the alternative energy committee is important as there seems to be some misunderstanding of what has come out of Copenhagen.

For example, there is an impression that there are millions of dollars available for renewable energy following the Copenhagen meeting,” the report said.

- Helen Greig

What is the Kyoto Protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialised countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilise GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. 184 Parties of the Convention have ratified its Protocol to date.

What does the Cook Islands want from a Kyoto Protocol successor?

The Cook Islands will continue to lobby for the following outcomes from the next UN conference of the parties on climate change:

Legally binding ratifiable outcome, to be concluded at COP 16;

Long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations at well below 350ppm (parts per million) carbon dioxide levels levels;

Global average surface temperature increases to be limited to well below 1.5° C above pre-industrial levels;

Global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2015 and decline thereafter;

Annex I (developed country) parties to the UNFCCC to reduce their collective GHG emissions by more than 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and more than 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, given their historical responsibility;

Funding is provided for adaptation with priority for Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries;

Consideration of loss and damage through an insurance and rehabilitation/compensation mechanism;

Scaled up, predicable, adequate, grant based funding under the Convention with expedited access for SIDS to address the challenge of adaptation to the increasing adverse effects of climate change, as well as for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution. More importantly, it poses a direct risk to the Cook Islands, impacting many of our key development sectors such as agriculture, health and marine resources. The Cook Islands, therefore, led by the prime minister Jim Marurai, participated in the 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held recently in Copenhagen. The Cook Islands delegation which attended the meeting issued this statement.

The purpose of the meeting was to decide on how the world responds to the problem of escalating climate change.

Essentially the Cook Islands along with other small island developing states wanted the world to set a goal to keep average temperature below 1.5 degrees celcius relative to pre-industrial levels. This is in line with the best scientific guidance which warns that greater warming in temperature will generate increasingly dangerous and unpredictable impacts.

Island states such as the Cook Islands are among the most vulnerable countries in the world to the negative effects of climate change.

The potential magnitude of the problem threatens the very existence of some Pacific Island states, as well as the achievement of sustainable development. For the Cook Islands it poses direct threats to the viability of our lower lying northern atolls, as well as food and water security.

Key impacts include destruction of coastal resources and infrastructure (roads for example) caused by sea level rise, storm surges, and the increased frequency of tropical cyclones; diminishing fresh water resources resulting from changing rainfall patterns and sea water intrusion into aquifers; more pests and diseases and reduced agricultural yields.

To meet this goal of limiting temperature rise, countries also considered reducing global greenhouse gas emissions (primarily from power generation, agriculture, deforestation, transportation and industry) by a compromise amount at least 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

The science suggests and the Alliance of Small Islands States has been calling for this 85 percent reduction.

If a target had been agreed, it would have sent a clear signal to business and industry, governments and citizens around the world that the future belongs to a low-carbon economy and that tomorrow’s winners will be those that invest in clean energy solutions. It would have also built some trust that countries were willing to take some steps towards avoiding Small Islands Developing States becoming collateral damage to other countries fossil fueled economic growth.

Copenhagen was to have served as a foundation for and springboard to a new legally binding global climate agreement which would help set targets for emissions reductions.

The agreement would also establish the necessary institutional arrangements for technology transfer, capacity building, and adaptation and quantify financial commitments from developed countries to support developing states such as the Cook Islands to enable us to better cope with the impacts and meet the additional costs of adaptation and mitigation which climate change imposes upon us.The Copenhagen meeting was historical in a number of ways as never before have so many heads of state from around the world gathered to negotiate an agreement, particularly one as complex as this.

After two weeks of hand-wrangling, some leaders developed a parallel negotiations process as the negotiators were unable to resolve a lot of the key issues.

Depending on who you speak to the resulting Copenhagen Accord is described as either a positive step forward or is a major disaster.

The Cook Islands delegation was disappointed with the outcome as it fell far short of what we wanted.

In essence, the Accord leaves many questions unresolved.

Firstly, countries would decide by how much they would reduce their greenhouse gas missions (GHG) through a pledging system. This was one of the key reasons why the USA did not sign the Kyoto Protocol.

For supporters of this voluntary clause, there is a greater likelihood that such commitments will be implemented versus one decided upon by 190-plus states as was the case under the Kyoto Protocol. The disadvantage of allowing states to pledge targets is dependent on national political circumstances and will likely fall short of what the science tells us is needed, if we want to avoid further dangerous climate change (and ensure the longer term viability of small island states).

Secondly, the Accord would create a system whereby every major economy must report every two years and have internationally reviewed its emissions and national plans on what it is doing to mitigate GHG.

Thirdly, the Accord indicated the provision of US$30 billion quick start funding increasing to US$100 billion of long term financing to support developing countries. Whether this is new and additional money or existing funding which will be diverted to climate related areas remain to be seen, and how accessible this will be to SIDS such as the Cook Islands is also an important question.

A ‘technology cooperation mechanism’ is to be established and for the need for adaptation actions was highlighted but it is not clear how these would be supported.

There was no reference to an international mechanism to address loss and damage through insurance and rehabilitation which the Cook Islands has been calling for due to in the face of insufficient emissions reductions which will mean climate change may exceed our current adaptive capacity.

Where to next?

More negotiations will have to take place to get things moving on the Accord.

For example, who will manage the new funding – the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility or a totally new mechanism, what will happen in 2015 the year when the Accord suggests a full review of aggregate targets for global, industrialised and developing countries?

Given the importance of this issue to the Cook Islands, the Cook Islands government is committed to being part of the solution as climate change is a global problem requiring a global solution.

The Cook Islands was led by prime minister Jim Marurai as head of delegation and included the following: then environment minister Ngamau Munokoa; Tania Temata (manager, island futures division, national environment service) alternate head; Myra Moeka’a-Patai (director, international organisations & treaties, ministry of foreign affairs & immigration) alternate head; Pasha Carruthers (climate change technical advisor, island futures, NES) delegate; Elizabeth Wright-Koteka (director, policy & planning unit, office of the prime minister) delegate; Miimetua Matamaki (second national communication cfficer, island futures, NES) delegate; Trevor Pitt (executive advisor, office of the prime minister) delegate; Arthur Taripo (chief executive officer, office of the minister of environment) delegate; Rikana Taiti Torama Tuhe (youth representative, NES) delegate; Diane McFadzien (policy coordinator, global climate initiative, WWF) delegate; Linda Siegele (legal advisor, foundation for international environment law and development) delegate; Ulamila Wragg (Pacific Wave media) delegate; Ngari Munokoa (office of the minister of environment) delegate.

The national environment service is investigating the cutting of number of trees on a Vaimaanga beach property late last month.

NES director Vaitoti Tupa said that developers are required to contact the service before tampering with trees in “foreshore areas” within 30 metres from the main high-water mark.

Tupa said that any plans to cut down trees should first be assessed by an Environment officer.

He said that his team is looking into the matter but that it’s possible the person respon- sible was only trying to avoid exposing tall trees to the threat of a cyclone.

Tupa said that instead of cutting tall trees down, it’s best to just “trim them” in preparation for a cyclone, or to consult with NES first.

He added that NES is to be consulted before cutting down trees in wetlands areas, which like the foreshore, are considered ‘specific areas of concern’.

• Rachel Reeves

A group photo for the participants at the recent ecosystem-based management course. 10020503

The ecosystem-based management course/workshop wrapped up at the Assemblies of God hall at Takuvaine last Friday.

Twenty participants from overseas, as well as four from the outer islands and government agency staff on Rarotonga, attended the two-week course which looked at integrating contemporary and traditional coastal ecosystem management in the Pacific.

Henry Muller from the Conservation Society in Majuro, Marshall Islands, said that the course has given him the tools to assist with the management of coastal and land areas back home.

“It will help in planning -- most importantly it’s taught me how to pull everything together and put it into a work plan.”

Nalesoni Leka from Tonga’s ministry of environment and climate change believes the same, and said that he had learned one has to consider all sorts of things when taking an ecosystem-based management approach to planning around coastal and marine resources.

“It was a very important course and it was interesting to hear the experience of the other islands and our island colleagues. Now we have the tools to help us plan things properly when it comes to our environment.”

Susau Siolo, who is employed by the ministry of natural resources and environment in Apia, Samoa, said she was interested by the ‘across-the-board’ approach required in EBM.

As a forestry planning and monitoring officer, Siolo said forestry issues can have an impact on the way nearby coastal areas are managed. And like her course colleagues she hopes that she can take what she has learned and apply it back home.

“It’s about doing things right.”

The course was run under the Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program -- the University of Queensland’s joint project with the Global Environment Facility, World Bank and the United States National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA).

The national environment service, ministry of marine resources and the Cook Islands Marine Resources Institutional Strengthening Project (CIMRIS) have helped bring the university’s annual course to Rarotonga.

• Moana Moeka’a