G8 leaders: what about the climate?

The wonderful colleagues over at Greenpeace UK asked me to write a blog on this year´s G8, so here goes:

As leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the USA and the UK descend on Northern Ireland for their yearly G8 jamboree, even the most conservative of bodies are calling for urgent action on climate change. The World Bank, for one, has made it clear that the 4 degree warmer world we are heading towards if we fail to act urgently is not a place any of us want to be. And the International Energy Agency has just reminded the world that the vast majority of oil, coal and gas reserves need to stay under the ground if we want life on earth to be pleasant rather than chaotic (a long overdue recognition of the „carbon logic“).

Yet, if you look at the G8 summit´s website, climate change is consipicuous in its absence. That did not used to be so. Back in 2007, 2008 or 2009, for example, climate was a key issue these countries fought over. Now it reportedly took heavy lobbying from Germany and France for „greenest government ever“ Cameron to even agree to talk about climate change at all. With such bad preparation and lack of political capital being invested in getting the G8 to send a leadership signal on climate, it´s hard to see how the Summit can produce anything but meaningless platitudes.

But do prove me wrong, dear G8 leaders, please do! French President Hollande, after all, has already called on you all to „do ... (your) part and give a strong political impetus to curb carbon emissions.“

Here is a simple guide to making me eat my words:

This G8 should:

-        set out clearly how existing commitments to finance climate action, adaptation and ending deforestation will be met and

-        how much „climate finance“ each G8 leaders will make available for countries in need between 2013-2015. It should

-        commit to innovate ways of generating the money urgently needed to fight poverty and climate change, including making the international shipping and aviation industries pay for their excessive damage to our climate, taxing financial transactions and redirecting the absurd amount currently being spent on fossil fuel subsidies to financing the energy revolution we need. As a German it makes my blood boil  that even a country like Germany spends 6.6 billion US $ on financing climate destruction through fossil fuel subsidies (but has only pledged some 500 million in terms of financial support to those countries that need support to act).

While they are at it, G8 leaders also need to show that they are serious about agreeing a new, legally binding, fair global treaty on climate change at the UN climate summit 2015 in Paris. To be credible, they need to deliver a peak in climate damaging emissions before 2020 and therefore need to set out immediate steps by each G8 nation to step up their efforts between now and 2020.

I am not holding my breath, but you are allowed to wake me up any time of night if you hear rumours of the G8 agreeing to such an action agenda. 

I am, by the way, not for a moment saying that the issues this summit will focus on instead of climate change – trade, tax compliance and transparency - are not important. The free trade agenda the G8 still holds onto, though, is likely to make our environmental vows worse, not  better. And it´s odd that the transparency discussion is not being linked to climate change. After all, climate change is a driver for „land grabbing“ and initiatives such as the „Publish What you Pay“ initiative, however welcome, are all too often about payments that facilitate the extraction of the very oil, gas and coal reserves that we know we need to find ways of leaving in the ground ...  

That said, on tax this G8 may yet deliver something positive for people and planet. I can only salute the excellent work done by other civil society groups on the outrage of corporate tax dodging. Their campaign work has indeed resulted in the „highest pressure yet on the tax dodgers“ this week. Corporations avoiding taxes is not only plainly unfair, it also results in there being less money available to tackle climate change, poverty and to pay for other vital public service. So here is to hoping that public pressure will result in a real step forward on ending tax evasion. I am keeping my fingers crossed.

Frankly, the G8 should have an interest in delivering something on tax compliance as doing so could allow them to argue that the G8 is not completely irrelevant in a multi-polar world. For the climate, the importance of the G8 is not in doubt. For starters, the G8 nations still emit a huge amount of all climate damaging gases worldwide (and have emitted the vast majority historically). And while everyone who has a high carbon footprint needs to act no matter where they live (from Manila to New York), there is no question that if the G8 nations sent a signal of leadership on climate change that would be a huge deal. It could change the „you go first“ dynamics of the climate negotiations and send clear signals to markets and investors that they cannot assume that fossil fuels will be a good long term investment.

I am not holding my breath. But especially if our leaders fail us – again - in Northern Ireland this week, I am asking for your help. We must hold their feet to the fire at home and make them act. One first opportunity to do so will be the End the Age of Coal action day on June 29th. Join in and remind world leaders that we need to keep fossil fuels in the ground if we are to have a decent future for all.

Vorwärts zur Green Economy?

Ich werde immer mal wieder nach diesem Artikel befragt, deswegen stelle ich ihn jetzt auch hier zur Verfügung. Ersterschienen im Rundbrief des Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung 3/2011. Diese Version erschien im Robin Wood Magazin.

Die Nachhaltigkeitsdebatte hat einen neuen Begriff – und bleibt vor allem eine Machtfrage

Ein neues Gespenst geht um in der internationalen Politik. Es heißt “Green Economy”. Je nach Meinung, ist es ein Monster, das eine egoistische Interessenpolitik der Industrieländer verschleiert; ein Engel, der uns endlich Entwicklung und eine saubere Umwelt bringt; oder eine Maus, die zwar ganz niedlich ist, aber ohne großes Gewicht.

Die “Green Economy” gilt als das Thema von Rio+20, dem nächsten großen Nachhaltigkeitsgipfel im Juni 2012. Aber schon der Beschluss der UN Generalversammlung zu Rio+20 illustriert, wie umstritten dieser Begriff ist. In Rio wird nämlich nicht einfach die “Green Economy” verhandelt, sondern: “die Grüne Wirtschaft im Kontext nachhaltiger Entwicklung und Armutsbekämpfung”. Ein typisches Ergebnis von Verhandlungen. Was diese Phrase genau bedeutet, wird ein Rätsel bleiben – beziehungsweise von hunderten Akteuren unterschiedlich interpretiert werden. UNEP, die den Begriff sehr stark geprägt haben, bemühen sich, die Green Economy als nachhaltige Entwicklung darzustellen: Die Green Economy wird präsentiert als ein Weg zurnachhaltigen Entwicklung. Andere UN-Institutionen wollen diesen neuen Green Economy Begriff natürlich nicht UNEP alleine überlassen. Zum Beispiel hat die Handelsorganisation der UN, UNCTAD, ein eigenes Manifesto für Rio+20veröffentlicht, das eine “development-led green economy” einfordert, also eine grüne Wirtschaft, die vor allem Entwicklung voran bringt. Geschickt wird dabei der Begriff positiv aufgegriffen – und gleichzeitig suggeriert, die “anderen”, die ihn verwenden, würden nicht ausreichend auf Entwicklungsinteressen achten.

Diese Skepsis ist verbreitet unter Entwicklungsakteuren. Martin Khor, als Chef des von Entwicklungsländern finanzierten South Centre, identifiziert mindestens vier Risiken, die dem Green Economy Diskurs seiner Ansicht nach innewohnen:

• dass es nur die Umwelt und nicht Entwicklung im Blick hat

• dass es einen “one size fits all” Ansatz wählt, das heißt dieselben Politikvorschläge für alle Länder macht, ohne auf deren Unterschiede genügend einzugehen

• dass es als Deckmantel für protektionistische Interessen des Nordens benutzt wird, z.B. in dem Umweltstandards für Importe festgelegt werden

• dass die “Green Economy” als neue Bedingung (conditionality) etabliert wird, die Entwicklungsländer erst erfüllen müssen, bevor sie Entwicklungshilfe oder Kredite erhalten können.

Die Nachhaltigkeitsdebatte hat einen neuen Begriff

Bolivien insbesondere sieht diese Punkte nicht nur als Risiko an, sondern als erwiesene Strategie der Industrieländer. Die “Green Economy” ist ihrer Meinung nach lediglich ein weiterer Schritt zur Vermarktung der Umwelt. “Die Marketisierung der Umwelt soll sie retten. Dies ist absolut falsch”, gab Pablo Solon für Bolivien im April 2011 bei der UNO zuProtokoll. Viele Akteure, zum Beispiel die OECD, definieren die “Green Economy” in der Tat rein ökonomistisch und definieren den Begriff zur neuen Wachstumsstrategie für alte Industrienationen um. Das mag ein Fortschritt gegenüber der vorherigen reinen “Wachstum über alles” Politik sein, nährt aber auch Skepsis in Entwicklungsländern. Die OECD erklärt beispielsweise zu Fischerei, Wäldern und Landwirtschaft, dass “klar definierte property rights” ein essentieller Teil einer “Begrünung” dieser Sektoren darstellt. Eine gefährliche Analyse, denn dies liefe auf eine Privatisierung von z.B. Fischbeständen hinaus. Diese privilegiert in Wahrheit genau die – großen, reichen und gut vernetzten − Akteure, die heute für die Plünderung unserer Meere verantwortlich sind.

Noch mehr als OECD-Studien schüren aber Äußerungen zur Green Economy von Ländern, die offensichtlich weder auf einem grünen noch nachhaltigen Pfad sind, Misstrauen. Für Kanada, zum Beispiel, scheint die Green Economy nicht mehr als ein grün angestrichener Status Quo zu sein, das bestätigten auch ihre jüngsten Äußerungen im März 2012 bei der UNO. Die, deren Interessen nicht leicht unter das Label “Green” zu fassen sind, definieren die “Green Economy” auch farblich anders: So gibt es viele Länder, die in Rio 2012 vor allem über die “Blue Economy” reden wollen. Fiji, als Repräsentant der kleinen Inselstaaten, forderte dies z.B. bei der Vorbereitungskonferenz im März2011. UN Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon hat dem “blauen Teil” der Green Economy ebenfalls seine Unterstützung signalisiert. Im August 2011 veröffentlichte erein Papier, das den Schutz von Korallenriffen als ein Thema für Rio+20 unterstützt.

Aus dieser kurzen Übersicht ist schon erkenntlich: Der Begriff Green Economy wird so umstritten sein − und bleiben − wie es der Begriff nachhaltige Entwicklung seit über 25 Jahren ist. Es wird immer richtig sein, “Wessen Green Economy”? zu fragen. Wir müssen die Interessen, die jeder Definition von der “Green Economy” zugrunde liegen, kritisch hinterfragen.

Die Frage ist: Was gehört nicht zu einer Green Economy?

Eine entscheidende Frage um progressive Definitionen der Green Economy von schädlichen zu unterscheiden ist, ob sie eine klare Sprache dazu finden, was zu einer Green Economy nicht dazu gehören darf. Auch schon der Diskurs um nachhaltige Entwicklung hat zu oft suggeriert, dass es jeweils nur um ein “win win” und ein “anders und besser” geht. Die Wahrheit aber sieht anders aus: Wer eine grüne Ökonomie will, muss die schmutzige Ökonomie beenden. Punkt. Atomkraft, neue Kohlekraftwerke, Gentechnik, die globale Entwaldung und Überfischung sind einige der Dinge, die in einer grünen oder nachhaltigen Wirtschaft Geschichte sein müssen. Unkontrollierte Finanzspekulationen und eine Wirtschaft, die auf dem Prinzip des ewigen “Mehr und Mehr” beruht – auch! Auf dem Weg nach Rio sollten wir vor allem den Finger auf die Wunden legen, und die Dinge klar benennen, für die Alternativen dringend notwendig – und vorhanden! – sind. Um die Green Economy voran zu bringen, müsste Rio+20 (und dies ist natürlich nur ein skizzenhafter Überblick):

1. sich klar zu einer Energierevolution auf der Basis von erneuerbaren Energien und Energieeffizienz bekennen. Dazu gehört auch, dass bis 2020 alle Menschen, die noch ohne Elektrizität leben, diese erhalten. Dafür wird ein massiver Ausbau dezentraler erneuerbarer Energien in Entwicklungsländern nötig sein.

2. beschließen, bis 2020 die globale Entwaldung zu stoppen. Dafür müssen die passenden nationalen Gesetze geschaffen werden, perverse Subventionen eingestellt und die Nachfrage, die Entwaldung antreibt, durch effektive Politikinstrumente reduziert werden.

3. Überkapazitäten der globalen Fischereiflotte beenden, ein internationales Abkommen, das Meeresschutzgebiete auf hoher See ermöglicht, auf den Weg bringen und Meeresschutzgebiet weltweit einführen, die 40 Prozent der Ozeane abdecken.

4. sicherstellen, dass die ökologische Landwirtschaft und Kleinbauern die nötige Unterstützung erhalten (direkt und durch Veränderungen der ökonomischen Rahmenbedingungen).

5. beschließen, innerhalb einer Generation die “Null-Einleitung” von schädlichen Chemikalien weltweit zu erreichen.

Wessen Definition der Green Economy sich durchsetzen wird, bleibt vor allem eine Machtfrage. Wir werden unsere Vorschläge als Zivilgesellschaft nur durchsetzen können, wenn wir uns dessen bewusst sind. Wir brauchen nicht tausend neue Konzepte und Studien – wir brauchen vor allem mehr Durchsetzungsmacht für die bereits vorhandenen Alternativen. Werden wir den Rio+20 Prozess dazu nutzen?

Cake but not champagne as CITES finally protects sharks

An edited version of this post on CITES COP 16 is on the greenpeace.org website.

If I baked a cake for every significant birthday of an international environmental agreement, I would have a weight problem right now. There has been an avalanche of birthdays recently: the Montreal Protocol to protect the Ozone layer turned 25; the Constitution of the Oceans - called UNCLOS - turned 30 and now CITES - the convention regulating the international trade of wild plants and animals - is celebrating its 40th anniversary (eek, same age as me!). Today, a cake would be justified though, as CITES concluded its latest meeting in Bangkok, Thailand, on a positive note. They took some additional steps to curb illegal logging and finally restricted trade in key shark species. CITES is not in midlife crisis, it seems, but is fledging its teeth and showing the world it has some bite! Good on them. You may keep hearing about global environmental politics being dead. Days like today show that reports of the death of multilateralism are highly exaggerated.

CITES currently has 177 member governments and usually makes headlines because it deals with the trade of impressive looking elephants, rhinos and tigers (you may have heard about Thailand committing to end ivory trade at this year´s meeting. Leonardo di Caprio was pretty excited about that). But CITES deals with A LOT more than elephants: It has some 5000 animal species and 29 000 plant species on its overfull plate. It just about manages to deal with that workload because unlike many UN agreements it does not operate by consensus. If no common agreement can be found, parties put a decision to a vote. The shark decisions this year were saved by a thin majority – but saved they were. Even more importantly, CITES cannot just ask nicely that governments please do what they have committed to. It can punish governments that export more than CITES allows with trade sanctions that hurt.

In recent years, CITES had sadly not used these powers as much as the world needs and failed to make progress on key issues such as shark protection. Like other global agreements, it had been hijacked by short term economic interests – with governments acting as servants to big business. As a result several commercially valuable but threatened fish species - including sharks - had failed to be listed by previous CITES meetings in recent years. That is why the listing of five shark species and two manta rays (look here if you - like me - didn´t immediately know what those are) today is all the more sweet. This time, the forces of darkness lost – and CITES did what it was established for. It protected our global commons over private interests.

Cake is in order then. And a big shout out to our allies Pew and the cites4sharks.org coalition that worked tirelessly over these past years, months and days to ensure that these species escape the fate of the poor dodo …Gratitude, also, to those governments who stood up for sharks and the environment today. You know what, you should have days like this more often – serving the people, not the polluters.

But this is not a champagne moment. Whilst it is a great affirmation of multilateralism for the world’s governments to come together and decide to protect these extremely valuable marine species, the need to do so is truly alarming and sad. We need these CITES trade measures precisely because we are so spectacularly bad at managing our planetary home, driving more and more species to (the brink of) extinction. We need CITES strong teeth to protect  sharks because otherwise we will not have any sharks left. And to be certain that sharks have a future, much more than today´s CITES decisions will be needed. 

Millions of sharks are caught as part of global tuna fisheries every year. Their bodies are thrown overboard, but only after the fins are hacked off in order to end up in shark-fin soup. As a result, it is almost too late for some shark species, such as the oceanic white tips, that have gone through dramatic stock declines.

CITES trade controls will help monitor and limit the number of species traded, as permits are only granted if the trade of the species can be proven not to compromise the future survival of this species in the wild. These extra measures will significantly improve current scientific assessments on these species, which are currently weak or in some cases non-existent. However, as long as fisheries management and enforcement in tuna fisheries remain weak, massive loopholes will remain.

Following the positive steps taken at CITES today, it is now time for governments to improve ocean governance overall and to urgently ban shark finning. So called transshipments at sea for tuna vessels – which in practice catch the majority of sharks – also need to be banned. These transfers of products from one ship to another enables shark fins to be “laundered” as domestic trade, therefore escaping the scrutiny of CITES’ controls. Greenpeace, therefore, is campaigning for tuna brands, restaurants and retailers to not buy from vessels that engage in this practice.

CITES took a step forward today. That gives me – and all of us Rainbow Warriors - new energy for the next battles that we must also win if sharks, our oceans and our planet are to have a sustainable future.

Transform global governance: Start with a UNEP Upgrade

This piece appeared in UNEP´s Our Planet Magazine. It´s a joint piece with Kumi Naidoo.

The Rio+20 summit was nothing short of an epic failure. In the face of accelerating climate change and an ever-increasing use of resources, governments failed to deliver the transformational change needed to safeguard our planet’s future. There was no commitment made to an energy revolution based on renewables and energy efficiency, or to urgently end deforestation. Overall, the world got just words and greenwash, not the urgent action required to provide prosperity for all without exceeding our planet’s limits.

By contrast, the strengthening of UNEP has been held up as one of the summit's top achievements. It is indeed good news that the General Assembly finally agreed in December 2012 that UNEP will receive “secure, stable and increased financial resources from the regular budget of the UN“. It was about time to end a state of affairs where UNEP needed to pass around a ´begging bowl´ each year to secure vital funds for environmental protection. And it was also excellent news that both Brazil and China used the occasion of Rio+20 to pledge significant additional sums to strengthen UNEP. This was a recognition of the important role UNEP plays in emerging economies – and a long way from the old, and false, “environment vs. development“ dichotomy that overshadowed its founding 40 years ago.

UNEP rightly aims to deliver “the environment for development”, and has worked very hard since its creation to address and become relevant to the needs of developing countries. Strengthening it therefore contributes to global development efforts, rather than distracting from them: the environment is, after all, the essential base for all development. No doubt, this is one reason why African Heads of States and Governments want to see it turned into a fully fledged specialized agency.

Rio+20 should indeed have been the place where UNEP finally became a proper UN Environment Agency, as many, including the African and European Unions, demanded in the final plenary discussion session. Sustainable development governance needs a global authority for the environment, with greatly enhanced implementation, compliance and enforcement mechanisms. Yet governments failed to upgrade UNEP at the summit, another reason for saying its outcome was a failure. UNEP did at least progress on the pitiful status quo, but this progression was ruefully inadequate for a Heads of States summit.

Governments must now move urgently to complete the upgrading process started in Rio. They must put flesh on the bones of the General Assembly resolution and secure significant additional funds for UNEP´s urgent and important work. They must also not shy away from more controversial subjects, such as giving UNEP the tools needed to effectively monitor implementation of multilateral environmental agreements – and to impose sanctions on those breaking the rules. As long as UNEP can only plead, coach and capacity build, while the World Trade Organization can impose punitive tariff measures on those breaking their rules, there is an unacceptable inequality of power. Environmental governance, people and the environment will continue to lose out as a result.

Yet if sustainability is to thrive, we will need much more than a strengthening and upgrading of existing institutions. As well as UN Environment Agency with real powers, we need global rules that change power dynamics and investment incentives. Global rules on corporate accountability and liability, for example, are essential to ensure that damaging people and the environment is no longer a free for all, but has real costs. At the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002, governments acknowledged the need for global rules for global corporations. At Rio+20, however, they only called for slight – and voluntary – improvements in the way that corporations report their social and environmental impacts. A binding global instrument that ensures full liability for any social or environmental damage global corporations cause must therefore remain high on any governance reform list. Indeed, it will be fundamental test of whether governments want to set rules for people and the planet or abandon responsibility to a free market focussed on short-term gain.

In truth, sustainable development cannot become reality in a world in which short-term bets by financial markets are all-powerful. Strong controls of such markets are therefore an integral part of the needed reform of global governance. New fiscal instruments, such as a Financial Transaction Tax, need to be adopted to slow harmful speculation and deliver much needed finance for development and environmental protection. A complete social and environmental review of the global trade system is also long overdue.

There has been talk about strengthening UNEP for decades. Remarkably, over the last 40 years, UNEP has thrived in difficult circumstances. It's present ability to publish global environmental assessments, for example, is remarkable: even twenty years ago NGOs needed to invest a lot of resources to find and publicize the kind of information that UNEP´s Global Environment Outlook , for example, now summarizes so succinctly. We are grateful to UNEP for playing this role, thus allowing us to focus even more on frontline campaigning. But, we also know that time is running out – and that every new Outlook report only underscores the increasing urgency for action.

We must thus strive for a true transformation of global governance that puts people and planet at the centre of all decision making. As a vital first step, governments need to give real power to UNEP and upgrade it to specialized agency status as soon as possible. Our children can simply not afford any more time to be lost.

P.S: Here is a link to a piece in German I wrote on UNEP and international governance in 2012: