PROGRESA/Oportunidades: Social protection in Mexico (Image by: Peter Bate, IDB, 2004)

Global environmental change, particularly in the form of global warming, exacerbates the risks faced by vulnerable rural communities whose livelihoods depend on climate-sensitive activities. The occurrence of immediate climate shocks, such as unseasonal droughts or floods, negatively affects food systems, thereby reducing the economic welfare of rural populations. Climate change is essentially a developmental challenge.

Within the context of climate change, the frequency and impact of shocks is becoming increasingly uncertain. Multiple approaches such as social protection (SP), disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation (CCA) are necessary to improve resilience and reduce external risks. The common goal of all three approaches to risk management is to improve the level of development by reducing poverty within a community, country or region. This is done by tackling vulnerabilities to specific shocks, thereby enhancing individual, community and national resilience to said shocks.

In the context of Mexico, social protection strategies have been mainstreamed into development-but there is little inclusion of climate change adaptation, and disaster risk reduction remains institutionally weak.

The Programme for Education, Health and Food (PROGRESA) and its successor programme, Oportunidades, in Mexico have been praised for improving the capacity of families to pull themselves out of poverty. In 2001, the proportion of people with income levels under the poverty line fell by 10% from 1994, with the greatest improvement noted among the poorest populations. The success of the programmes is attributed to its ability to deal with multiple risks (education, health and food) simultaneously.

However, climatic risks are excluded from development planning. Because rural populations depend on weather-sensitive activities for their livelihoods, building resilience to climate change is fundamental to reducing rural poverty. The impacts of climate change on rural livelihoods remains uncertain.

Climate models predict an adverse impact on Mexican agriculture through an increase in the frequency and impact of weather extremes. Climate change impacts will have an overall negative impact on food insecurity. Changing disease and pest patterns, also associated with climate change, will reduce productivity.

In order to address such risks, it is also important to take into consideration local coping skills as incorporation of risk is commonplace in rural communities. Communities choose crops according to the risks intrinsic to their environment: sugar cane is selected in areas exposed to hurricane risk for its ability to resist high wind speeds and flooding.

Moreover, communities may accumulate assets to improve resilience to climate shocks. Diversification of livelihoods is an important method to encourage asset accumulation. In Mexico, agroforestry techniques have improved resilience to climate shocks. By introducing a woody perennial in a plantation, the farm plot becomes more resilient to climate risks. Farmers have reported lower losses in agricultural productivity following hurricane events after using agroforestry technologies due to increased ecosystem and structural stability. An additional benefit to multiple cropping is the accumulation of cash as the result of having additional crops-reliance on a single crop renders farmers vulnerable to a single market whereas having multiple crops allows farmers to depend on multiple markets. Furthermore, agroforestry techniques are inherently more labour-intensive and therefore encourage employment within a community. Such strategies can therefore be helpful in reducing the vulnerability of rural people to climate shocks but they need to be mainstreamed into development planning.

A combination of approaches may help in improving institutional coordination, and therefore improve both the efficiency and the effectiveness of poverty reduction strategy papers. However, a combination of policies also has the potential of obfuscating their specific roles: they may overlap both in their objective and in their focus, rendering them redundant. Specific policies will likely have very specific aims and objectives in an effective social protection approach. Social protection mechanisms should focus on meteorological phenomena and their impacts on agriculture and rural livelihoods. Social protection should increase resilience to disaster risks, while also acknowledging climate variability in the long-run. Rather than focusing on increasing assets or reinforcing coping mechanisms, social protection should aim to protect livelihoods from anticipated shocks; flexibility should also be given to respond to unexpected shocks. As such, it is important for social protection programmes to take into consideration the changing nature of climate and climate shocks.

The extremely high hurricane season of 2005 highlighted the vulnerability of coastal communities to extreme weather events.  The costliest (Katrina) and the most intense (Wilma) hurricanes were recorded in this season.

Hurricane formation is closely linked to sea surface temperature. Climate models agree that the intensity and frequency of hurricanes will increase over the next few decades as a result of anthropogenic climate change.

This poses important developmental and policy challenges to Mexico.

Developmental challenges

The economic losses associated with hurricanes are huge, with post-disaster recovery accounting for 30% of the regional economy.

The most affected States in Mexico are Veracruz, Tabasco, Yucatan and Quintana Roo.

The former two are highly dependent on climate-sensitive activities including monocrop agriculture and fishing. Monocrop agriculture is economically and structurally vulnerable to climate extremes. For instance, farmers in Veracruz often define hurricanes as “the worst of enemies”-not only do they destroy farm plots, they also affect the quality of soil. Climate change disasters therefore pose important challenges to rural livelihood security.

In contrast, the State of Quintana Roo-where the world-famous tourist resort Cancun is located-depends on tourism for its economic viability. Hotels are constructed on the shoreline and are hence very vulnerable to the winds that accompany hurricanes. During the 2005 hurricane season, losses of over $100 billion were reported.

Policies: disaster risk reduction as a strategy for climate risk management

The socioeconomic implications of hurricane risk are clear. The policy implications, however, are not so clear.

The Mexican adaptation strategy deals mostly with progressive changes (such as desertification and long-term water scarcity) but ignores climate extremes. This is because of the institutional arrangements: climate change is dealt with by a number of agencies, including the Ministries of Environment and Foreign Affairs, whereas disaster policy is prepared by the Ministry of Civil Protection. Disasters are dealt with on a more ad hoc basis, depending on the nature and scale of the emergency.

Disasters continue to be treated as “unavoidable”, and so policy tends to be reactive rather than responsive. However, as part of the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005), several countries (Mexico included) have moved towards disaster risk reduction. By linking risk reduction to climate change, it is possible to adapt to future climate threats. In Mexico, institutional commitment has been attained (with all major government agencies accepting risk reduction as a fundamental aspect of climate policy), but no comprehensive achievements have yet been attained.

Major obstacles to the successful inclusion of disaster risk reduction into Mexico’s climate change policy include:

• Lack of involvement of business: it is necessary to sensitise the private sector and to highlight the profitability of engagement in risk reduction strategies (for example, through insurance).
• Lack of community participation: it is necessary to integrate vulnerable communities in climate policies so as to give them a sense of ownership with the projects.
• Lack of experience with risk reduction strategies: it is necessary to develop policies and learn from past experiences.

By integrating the political epistemologies of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation, it might be possible to adapt the most vulnerable coastal communities in Mexico to extreme weather events.

Those hoping the G8 would achieve a breakthrough in Climate negotiations, would only need to look at the history of the G8 to know it is often more like an extended press conference for the G8 countries to touch base and put out some symbolic gestures on the issue of the day, meanwhile the real negotiations are happening behind the scenes round the clock all year long.

But in terms of gestures what was achieved?

That the G8 countries aim to keep global emissions low enough to avoid a 2C rise in temperature

That it should aim to cut 80% of emissions by 2050, and the world aim for 50% cuts.

Neither stands out as groundbreaking, and worse for environmentalists was that several measures discussed appeared to fall by the way side: Mexico proposed a “green fund” for developing countries, something floated by Brown prior the G8 meeting and worse still developing countries are of the opinion that only a 40% cut by 2020 by developed countries could get them to make serious cuts.

Nevertheless, The G8 has not been a failure and in fact is another albeit small stepping stone for an event which garners far too much publicity for what actually goes on. While the developed countries proposed cuts against those demanded by developing countries may make negotiations appear at an impasse, in reality, a solution is probably not so far off.

Three factors, discussed could make a breakthrough:

The first is the role of a “Green fund”, developing countries protest that the G8 make deeper cuts because they are responsible historically for emissions but more importantly because their people are already more prosperous. If a significant ‘green fund’ was made available, it could have the dual role of aiding development and doing so sustainably. This could also take the form of technology transfer, in combination with funding, which remains a critical road block to developing countries supporting environmental energy options.

The second is the Waxman-Markey bill currently being debated in the US senate, this needs to pass with a credible amount of its original intention left intact, if it does, that paves the way for further North American legislation ( with Canada and possibly Mexico in some role), perhaps more importantly it gives the US genuine clout to lead.

The third and most important factor lies with US negotiations with China, Russia and Brazil. Already the US has persuaded China to come to the table, as well as reticent Russia. Although importance should also be attached to the role of Brazil, India and Indonesia, is is these two countries, the next most powerful of non-western countries that could make or break global negotiations. I

The US has its work cut out; continued behind the scenes work will be the modus operandi in the run up to Copenhagen. However all policy relies on momentum, a global deal even a disappointing one, changes the domestic policy debates for the better, this could create a positive interchanging momentum that increasingly reaches for greater efforts to cut emissions globally.

The G20 leaders standing for their

The G20 Summit in London has now concluded, with US President Obama filling the main press briefing room for an hour-long press session.  The main points of the summit for international and national climate policy are summarised below:

1. Overall: In the substantive elements of the summit outcomes there is little mention of climate change.  In the summary communiqué climate change is mentioned in the second-to-last and penultimate paragraphs only.  As Climatico’s Simon Billett asked UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, there is little evidence that this summit has been more than an agreement to agree in later meetings.
2. Forestry: UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, said that forestry was a fundamental element of the global climate programme.  Italy has agreed to hold specific discussions on it at the G8 in July 2009.  There was agreement from France, Australia, Italy, Germany, US on the need for a global forestry deal.  Forestry was a major point of discussion in the corridors between delegations.
3. USA Climate Policy: It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will require cuts from China and India for a ‘comprehensive’ COP15 deal.  Obama said that “further discussions” needed with China, and that the US recognises its role as leader of clean energy and tech for China and India.  Obama: “We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”.
4. Green Growth: The summit has done little to define green growth or encourage the use of best practice measures between G20 countries.  While para. 27 and 28 of the final communiqué do reaffirm the commitment to low carbon growth, the summit has done almost nothing to further definitions of what this might mean or how it should be achieved.

© EFE

The G20 summit is in full swing and the world is looking to London for a whole range of solutions. The shouts of the protesters and the presence of high-level politicians eclipse the (admittedly less sexy) seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 7) and the fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA 5) that are currently taking place in Bonn, Germany. This meeting is the first out of three planned negotiating sessions before the important 15th Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen in December 2009. In other words, these meetings will define the nitty-gritty parts of any future climate change commitments and will give actual flesh (or not) to the statements made by political leaders at the G20 summit. Ultimately, these meetings will show how prepared countries are to turn their grand words into actual responsibilities.

Mexico has moved into the spotlight of climate change negotiations. As first emerging economy announcing emissions reductions (50% by 2050), it caught international attention at COP-14 in Poznan. AND, it has reiterated this target in its long awaited and recently released second draft of its Special Programme on Climate Change. Of course, the realization of this commitment does not come unconditional. Yet, interestingly and in contrast to other countries, rather than making its emissions reductions conditional upon equivalent emissions targets from other (emerging) economies, Mexico demands an improved international system of climate change financing that sets the right economic incentives. In President Calderon’s words “The problem are the not the objectives themselves. The problem is that we do not have the right instruments for the job, meaning that there is no point wasting another five years discussing what the right objectives are.” In this respect, Mexico has repeatedly proposed a so called Green Fund, but for the first time, he actually specified details of this suggested mechanism on his visit to London: The fund would be financed through a system of quotas, similar to institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which would dictate how much each country paid into the pot. The size of a country’s contribution would be determined by factors such as income per capita, gross domestic product, total carbon emissions, or emissions per capita. Countries will then be able to draw money to cover costs of mitigation and adaptation programmes. Countries that lack environmental conscience will not get money back from their quota.

Taking this as starting point, subsequent blogs will focus on analysing Mexico’s determination to consolidate its leadership position in actual commitments, and its role and ability, as emerging economy, to move the international community towards a successful outcome in Copenhagen.

Geithner, Obama, and Brown

As expected, the global economy took center stage at the G20 Summit held yesterday in London. Amidst the world economic crisis, G20 leaders met to discuss and put forth a global plan for recovery. Included amongst the six pledges made by the leaders of the Group of Twenty was a pledge for a green and sustainable recovery. However, despite this pledge and the hopes of many demonstrators, the public, and officials, climate change and plans for a green recovery featured little in the day’s discussions.

Over the weekend, the official G20 communiqué leaked to the press and included only vague language on the topic of climate change. According to paragraphs 27 and 28 in the official communiqué:

27. We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. We encourage the MDBs to contribute fully to the achievement of this objective. We will identify and work together on further measures to build sustainable economies.

28. We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The vague language of the communiqué led to speculation that a “green stimulus” package might be less than concrete. This sentiment continued in the days leading up to the Summit.

Therefore, the day began with slightly lowered expectations for the one-day summit. Much of the morning for reporters was spent researching, writing, and watching leaders get their pictures taken. Anticipation and excitement began to grow as delegates sat down for their plenary session in the morning. However, not until close to 2:00 PM did green issues appear on the agenda with a press conference held by the UK Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband.

In the early afternoon, Miliband surprised reporters with a short press conference to brief them on the progress of climate change discussions and answer questions. Miliband stated that he was confident that the G20 Summit would provide forward movement towards Copenhagen in December. The discussions would serve to facilitate the process toward Copenhagen and would be used to make a statement to China and other developing countries that the United States, UK, and EU countries were committed to tackling climate change.

Climatico’s Simon Billett asked Miliband whether this talk of “first steps” was anything more than “agreeing to agree?” In response, Miliband stated that while the G20 summit was “essentially an economic summit,” among the G20 participants existed the understanding of the “mainstreaming [of] the green message.” Furthermore, Miliband said that countries such as Saudi Arabia and Russia are more likely to attach importance to renewables despite prior hesitation. “This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery…The notion of low-carbon as a way out of recession has gone from being marginal to being mainstream.”

Miliband went on to say that forestry is a fundamental element in the climate program and will be discussed in Italy at the G8 meeting in July. Billett noted that forestry proved a major topic of conversation within the corridors of the Summit. Furthermore, private discussions between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd regarding the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal adds to the speculation that forestry will be a topic to watch in the months to come.

Despite Miliband’s press conference, the topic of climate change once again became quiet over much of the afternoon. During his speech, French President Nicholas Sarkozy failed to reference any discussion on the topic of the environment. And, despite Miliband’s enthusiasm, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown only restated that the G20 was committed to meet again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

However, U.S. President Barack Obama brought climate change back onto the floor during his press conference late in the day. Obama’s trip to London included several bilateral meetings with the leaders in attendance outside of the context of the G20. In response to a reporter’s question from the Times of India, Obama addressed a bilateral meeting he had with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Amongst other points of discussion, Obama and Singh touched on the issue of “energy and how important it is for the United States to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprint so that we can help to forge agreements with countries like China and India…for our efforts to control climate change.”

Obama alluded to future discussions on the topic of climate change with China. In addition, he recognized the challenges that lie ahead for the topic amidst the current economic crisis. “In some ways, our…European counterparts have moved more quickly than we have on this issue, but I think even the Europeans have recognized that it’s not easy. It’s even harder during times of economic downturn.” He went on to add, “We’re going to have to combine the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency with rapid technological advances. And to the extent that in some cases we can get international cooperation and pool our scientific and technical knowledge around things like developing coal sequestration, for example, that can be extremely helpful.”

Obama’s speech wrapped up the events of the day. However, despite a long day of meetings and press conferences at the G20 Summit, action towards green growth remained largely undefined. As to be expected, the world economic crisis was the star of the show and, therefore, plans to repair the global economy held the spotlight. Yet, often this subject turned to the discussion of bank regulation and executive pay rather than outlining plans for green growth. Despite all of this, environmentalists can rest assured that the international dialogue on climate change has begun to move forward. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Obama’s press conference, the United States appears onboard for further discussions and acknowledges its role as a leader and partner in reaching a climate change deal come December. Between Obama’s acknowledgement that the US must lead by example and Miliband’s enthusiasm for momentum, hopefully the G20 will prove a success for environmentalists, after all, by bringing in greater participation, particularly by China and India, at Copenhagen later this year. We shall have to wait and see.

20:17 NB: So to end what has been over 12 hours of live-blogging from our analysts, I will leave you with Simon Billett’s summary article with four key take-home messages for the day.  Thanks for following our coverage of the climate-related aspects of the G20 Summit here in London, UK.  Goodnight!

20:14 NB: With the final press conference over, journalists and media representatives are being ushered from the Summit.  Many of the leaders here today called the Summit “historic”, and yet it had a distinct lack of discussion on climate change, save a press conference from Miliband and some final remarks from Obama.

19:48 FA: After the G20, President Obama is expected to visit France and Germany to mark the 60th anniversary of NATO. Many local hopes rest on enhanced US-EU cooperation in the international sphere.

19:46 SB: It is unclear whether Obama’s statements make Chinese and Indian action a condition for US action in COP15.  He has left this discussion open.

19:37 Obama: We need an interesting conversation on how to overcome this challenge… we need low carbon growth… a rapid deployment of technology across the world… the US needs to lead these countries into the low carbon energy future”

19:36 Obama: Our EU counterparts have moved quicker on this issue and perhaps the US need to catch up.

President Obama's press conference concluded the G20 Summit

19:35 Obama: We talked about a whole range of issues: energy, how important it is for the us to lead by example in reducing our carbon footprints so that we can help to forge something with China and India who have much smaller footprints and chafe at the idea of having to sacrifice their development.

19:34 Obama just stated that if China and India had the same per capita emissions as us in the US, we would effectively “melt”.

19:29 RV: Reuters also reports “Glen Tarman of BOND (British Overseas NGOs for Development) and chair of Put People First, an alliance of 160 unions, development, faith and climate change groups, said: “The G20 appears to have made progress on some critical issues but there are also missed opportunities, especially on building a green economy, and causes for real concern in other areas. G20 leaders have not yet gone far enough on the fundamental changes the world needs.”

19:28 RV: Reuters reports “Adrian Lovett, director of campaigns for Save the Children, said: “Nobody should imagine this summit is anything more than a beginning. A communique feeds no one and words alone do not save a child’s life. But there is a ray of hope from today’s summit that leaders may have grasped the chance to point the world in a fairer, more just direction. Everything now depends on what those leaders do next.”

19:26 RV: Tearfund regrets sees the G20 as a missed opportunity.  “We welcome the new money in this huge fiscal package but the G20 today missed a major opportunity to ensure that all new investments constitute a genuinely Green New Deal,” said Paul Cook, Tearfund’s Advocacy Director. “With no clear commitments to ensure that stimulus money is invested in low carbon technology the world risks a recovery which is based on business as usual. It locks us into a path which will result in runaway climate change and devastating impacts for the world’s poorest community.”"

19:25 RV: India reaffirms confidence in Obama’s leadership “”Under your leadership we will face challenges such as climate change,” the prime minister told Obama at their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 summit here.”

19:13 NB: Still no mention of climate change in the question session.  Obama appears ill and just sneezed twice.

19:00 NB: Perhaps it’s an attempt to bring himself down to the level of the journalists in order to win their praise?

18:58 AD: While most politicians have an aide select people to ask questions, Obama is choosing them himself.

18:51 Obama’s only mention of climate change during his speech occurred while talked about the bilateral meetings: “we discussed coordinated action on a range of issues… [including how to] protect our planet from the scourge of climate change”.

18:50 NB: No mention of climate change yet in Obama’s press conference.

18:43 NB: At the reception earlier today, Obama was called “the most popular politician on the planet”.  His press conference just started and is being watched by the World’s media as I write this.  

18:41 FA: We have to remember that change in the US adminstration will take time, as they previously have been outside the Kyoto carbon reduction framework. Writing in the Guardian earlier in March, Nigel Purvis warned that the EU needed to resist the urge to set the US unrealistic climate standards. Its current emmissions are 17% abover their 1990 levels.

18:40 RV: Manmohan Singh description of his meeting with Obama where they spoke on how “the global issues like energy security and climate change can be dealt with together. I go back home very satisfied…”

18:36 NB: In true Summit style, Obama’s press conference has not begun yet, but the room is absolutely packed, and the organisers are currently shuffling around photographers to ensure that everyone has a sight line to the stage.

18:25 Adeline Dontenville just posted an article on Climatico discussing the seeming absence of the issue of climate change at the G20 Summit.

18:17 George Monbiot advocates a far greater focus on climate change

“The G20 leaders appear to have decided to deal with these problems only when they have to - in other words, when it’s too late. They persuade themselves that getting the economy back to where it was - infinite growth on a finite planet - can somehow be reconciled with the pledge “to address the threat of irreversible climate change”"

18:12 RV: ActionAid’s response: “Today’s crucial G20 talks have promised a huge rescue package for the global economy, but the promise must be kept”

18:09 FA: The Guardian reports that US President Obama’s G20 visit brought a ‘warm glow’ to Number 10. President Obama’s press conference looks as though it will start shortly.

17:52 RV: John Hilary has also been barred, and asks on guardian.co.uk, “[h]as the government decided only to allow non-critical organisations into major events?”

“More importantly, excluding critical voices means that there risks being less media coverage of what the G20 has omitted to do when it comes up with the statement to conclude its meeting. The “deal or no deal” fixation sets the summit up as a game show in which the only concern is whether all leaders can sign up to a joint communiqué. This is setting the bar almost as low as it can go”

17:46 NB: The G20 leaders’ wives and husbands’ photo shoot is currently taking place.

17:45 jimwebber@twitter: #g20 You choose your leaders and place your trust, as their lies wash you down and their promises rust

17:44 FA: Several NGOs have been prevented from attending the G20 summit.  As well as the World Development Movement, War on Want had its accreditation revoked at the last minute. The FCO maintains that this is a matter of being inundated with applications and not having sufficent space. Both of these NGOs were organisers of the ‘Put People First’ march through London on Saturday. Some have pointed out that a common thread amongst those being sidelined is that they do not feel that the IMF, WTO and World Bank should be empowered by the financial crisis. All three of these organisations have been given seats at the leader’ dinner table tonight.

17:42 SB: The Canadian and Italian press conferences have now both come to an end without any mention of climate change.

17:40 FA: Walden Bellow, an economist with Manila-based ‘Focus on the Global South’ doubts whether any stimulus packaged managed by the IMF will obtain international buy in.

17:31 SB: Obama’s press conference will begin in 20 minutes.

17:29 AFP: “German and US economic recovery plans are more climate friendly that those in France, Britain or Italy, but all fall short of what is needed to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, according to a green ranking of stimulus plans released Thursday” 

17:17 RV: The Task Force on Low-Carbon Economic Prosperity, part of the World Economic Forum, has sent an open letter to the G20.  The group, made up of major companies, international bodies, and leading climate change experts sent the letter demonstrating their willingness to work towards fighting climate change and rebuilding the economy.  The letter, sent earlier this week, touched upon low carbon economies, energy efficiency, adaptation and other topics.

“Designed properly, the new framework could have a greater degree of impact than any other sustainable development initiative in history. This is because a well-designed, market-based framework…can also help catalyse the required flows of private capital and clean energy technology to developing nations in the most innovative, entrepreneurial and cost-effective way”

17:10 AD: The Dutch Prime Minister says it is really important the G20 has today talked about long term issues like climate change.

16:59 NB: The EU press conference is currently taking place.  The Canadian conference will begin shortly, and the India press conference will be in roughly 45 minutes.

16:57 RV: Julian Oram of the World Development Movement:

“It’s absolutely astounding that the G20 communiqué merely paid lip service to climate change and the need for a low carbon economy. The excuse that climate change will be discussed later in the year at Copenhagen doesn’t wash. The G20 has missed the opportunity to deliver a green global stimulus package that would create jobs and help to tackle climate change. The economic crisis and the climate crisis are intrinsically interlinked and must be addressed as such through a global green new deal.”

16:54 RV: The World Development Movement, who were banned from Summit, have released a press release: “G20 outcome a bitter pill to swallow”

16:53 atvieira@twitter: “next G20 Summit @ North Pole. Penguins have just confirm attendance”

16:51 MMG: Paragraph 27 of the communique text:

We agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus
programmes towards the goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green
recovery.  We will make the transition towards clean, innovative, resource
efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure

16:48 MMG: The summit has still not resolved on what measures are required to implement this green growth that is being discussed.

16:46 MMG: Here is the communique text on climate change:

We reaffirm our commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change,
based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, and to reach agreement at the UN Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in December 2009.

16:40 DA: Sarkozy’s press conference is now over without a single mention of the world “climate”.

16:39 RobertsDan@twitter: #G20 #Sarko “if this is not capitalism with a conscience I don’t know what is”. He sounds happy.

16:37 Sarkozy: “The G20 has recognised that the world must change.”

16:34 NB: The final question of the Brown press conference has been asked, without a single mention of climate change in any of the questions.

16:31 sdmoss@twitter: “#g20 good outcome for poor and macro stabilty. Where’s climate change?”

16:30 CAFOD says Miliband “cannot see the wood for the trees”

16:25 Brown: “We now have countries that would never have sat around the table together a few years ago coming together… and working together.”

16:21 SB: Climate change is not particularly on the agenda before the next G20 Summit in Washington in September.  Brown failed to mention it when he was asked about the road to the next summit.  The G20 leaders have effectively deferred climate policy to the UNFCCC process and the G8 in Italy.

16:20 SB: All of the talk is on trade at the moment.

16:17 AD: Sarkozy: Gordon Brown was a “particularly intellectually honest host” of the G20. The “agreement goes beyond what we could have imagined.”

16:16 robertsdan@twitter: #G20 green promise goes no further than committing to “work together”. What does that mean?

16:15 AD: Sarkozy has made no mention of the environment or climate change.

16:14 SB: Brown attempts to advocate a coordination game in the globalised world to deal with climate change, “If countries act together they can make a better difference”

16:12 Brown” “We will put more money aside for a green recovery.”

16:10 Brown: “We will manage the process of globalisation.”  “A new world order is emerging… to build a more sustainable… future.”

16:09 SB: Brown has just said that the G20 is committed to meeting again later this year to discuss a Post-Kyoto climate deal.

16:07 NB: Brown has just agreed to appoint the heads of the IMF and World Bank based on merit (one would assume as opposed to the current scheme of the EU picking the head of the IMF and USA choosing the leader of the World Bank).

16:04 NB: No mention of climate change in either conference yet.

16:00 SB: Brown has begun his press conference.  Sarkozy is next door giving a simultaneous conference.  Brown’s aids seem unhappy about Sarkozy speaking at the same time.

15:48 SB: Primeminister Brown’s press conference is about to begin.  President Sarkozy’s will be straight after.

15:46 RV: Dan Roberts at the Guardian says:

“Sadly, the difficulty of reaching agreement on other thorny issues such as regulation has kicked climate change into the long grass at just the wrong moment.”

15:44 RV: guardianeco@twitter calls Miliband’s press conference earlier “disappointing on green issues”

15:36 RV: fissionstrategy@twitter says:

“Just met with UK Enviro Sec David Miliband who says getting people excited about green jobs means describing what those jobs look like.”

15:29 NB: The Summit’s live web-stream is full of journalists tensely waiting for the next news conference.

15:19 RV: Despite the rhetoric, Giles Broadbent feels that climate change was shortchanged during the G20.

Journalists waiting in anticipation of the next press conference

15:17 RV: Ed Miliband is confident about climate change progress: “What the G20 summit shows is there is an understanding among world leaders that the economic crisis and the environmental crisis can be tackled together”

15:09 NB: The second session is just beginning and Gordon Brown is speaking. Most of the discussion appears to be focusing on financial institutions.

15:05 MMG: The quite for the main press conference is very long, and the atmosphere feels rather anticipatory.

14:56 NB: Fuad Ali is taking a break so I’ll be taking over on the live-blogging front from here.  We still have plenty to look forwards to including an number of press conferences and a couple summary pieces from our analysts.  Stay tuned…

14:29 RV: This is not an absolute suprise, a Chinese news agency quoted Miliband last week saying,

“One of the fastest growing markets in the future is going to be in environmental industries.”

14:26 SB: Mexico’s President Calderon is leaving the UK at 14.30 BST and will be giving a statement at the airport rather than the conference centre.

14:25 SB: the press mood is frantic. This statement from Miliband is what many were hoping to hear.

14:18 SB: Miliband,

‘This is a significant step in mainstreaming low carbon development in economic recovery.’

14:16 SB: The communique from the G20 is throught to include specific language on climate change, [quoting Miliband] ‘despite the G20 being a primarily economic summit’.

14:12 SB: Climatico’s Simon Billett asks Miliband whether this talk of ‘first steps’ was anything more than agreeing to agree.

Miliband responded by saying that momentum building was key and that he had had significant discussions with Berlusconi on the inclusion of forestry as a specific issue at the G8 that will get its own discussion time.  There have also been private discussions between Merkel and Rudd on the importance of including forestry in a global climate deal.

Thus it appears that forestry will be a major topic of for the next ten months, yet the G20 seems to have reached nothing more than an agreement to agree.

13.58 RV: Intel chief Otellini has signed the Copenhagen Climate Council’s letter published in the International Herald Tribune today.

“We believe that this year we are at an historic crossroads. Either we establish a new more effective global climate treaty to tackle the climate problem, or we jeopardize our common future.”

13:53 SB: Miliband continues that the meeting with President Obama last night went well. Green growth was emphasised and both politicians agreed the challenge now was to build on the momentum developed at the G20 all the way to Copenhagen.

13:49 SB: Miliband talks around three points: 1) optimism with reference to copenhagen and securing a 20 nation sign-up at this Summit; 2) recognition that the mainstreaming of mitigation into development has been established from this moment on; and 3) that the G20 shows that Climate and Economy can be tackled together.

13:49 SB: More than two-thirds full now.

13:41 SB: The briefing room is filling up, and is currently at half of its capacity.  The media were not expecting any specific briefing on issues at the Summit, especially not on climate change, which has figured as something of an auxiliary issue at this G20.  The briefing was announced suddenly on screens in the media hall.

The press gather for a statement from Ed Miliband, the UK Secretary for Energy and Climate Change.

13:20 FA: Ed Milliband, UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change will be giving a statement at 13:45. We will be bringing it to you shortly. Grapling with two sometimes contradictory interests in the same portfolio in an age of great climate diplomacy and politics, Ed Milliband has delivered the UK public and bureaucracy a special pragmatism in the recent past.  From controversy with respect to a new coal power station in Kingsworth Kent to promoting carbon trading between government departments, his statement is important for the UK domestic climate picture as well as for what it expresses to the G20 community.

13:12 SB: At this point it looks as though there will be little or no new content on green growth and low carbon technology. [FA] Political horizons have no doubt shortened and with Copenhagen COP not to far away, little ground will be made up at this forum. Bilateral and regional contact sessions will have played an informal role in developing national coalitions for future discussions.

13:09 SB: Working lunch, fish and chips for the press.

12:45 RV: Ashok Sinha from Stop Climate Chaos says,

“Instead of boosting more unsustainable consumption, the hundreds of billions of dollars on the G20 table for a fiscal stimulus must be used to invest away from using fossil fuels in favour of low-carbon economies, as well as supporting low carbon development in poor countries.”

12:41 SB: The G20 family photography needed to be taken again, as Stephen Harger (Canada) had been ommitted. He was in the loo.

12:38 SB: Rudd (Australia) and Berlusconi (Italy) now chatting in private.

12:38 SB: Mandelson says “There are key differences over numbers”.

12:34 RV: The Jakarta Post quotes Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on his 15 minute pre-summit meeting with Gordon Brown.

“I said it was good to have *energy cooperation*, especially *with* BP, to jointly develop environmentally friendly biofuels in Indonesia.”

12:24 SB: The seating plan for dinner later today.

12:20 AD: It looks like they agreed upon listing tax havens and increasing IMF loan funds by $250 billion

12:19 SB: The first plenary session is just wrapping up.

12:00 RV: More from the bilateral sidelines, this time concerning President Obama’s interaction with Chinese President Hu Jintao. China and the US are the two largest national polluters. XinghuaNet reports that substantial attention, a paragraph, was devoted to clean energy and climate change in the ensuing White House statment.

11:46 AD: A study commissioned by environmental charity WWF and the low-carbon group E3G stated that the economic recovery plans being discussed by G20 leaders at the London summit represent “a missed opportunity” on low carbon technology.

Bob Geldof continuing advocacy for Africa.

11:40 AD: Adeline Dontenville has just published a blog article on how green the London G20 Summit outcomes will be.

11:27 RV: Globoreports that Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva will tell the G20 that Brazil is ready to contribute to an IMF fund to help poor countries affected by the crisis.

11:06 SB: There will be no new money provided by this summit.  This leaves ‘green growth’ within the sphere of national policies.  All that this summit can do is to pledge to use certain climate measures in their plans.

10:53 RK: In his meeting with President Obama, the Indian envoy Schyam Saran called for a comprehensive climate pact and for the famous ’stimulus’ package to include to provision to improve developing country’s access to green technology.

10:42 SB: Delegates are taking their seats in the plenary session now.The atmosphere is growing in the media pool as statements are expected to reveal the extent of agreement and division between delegations.

10:37 MMG: Post-breakfast photo opportunistic politics, Gordon Brown flanked by the Chinese premier and the Brazilian president.

10:19 FA: Leaders are busy having their photos taken. In recent months, government and press attention on fundamental failings in financial culture have been prioritised over environment. The coincidence of climate and financial crises creates an opportunity for newer, less seasoned ideas about how government may approach economy and environment.

“There can be no going back to business as usual” Put People First

This has been one of the messages from the public demonstrations taking place all over London.

10:15 SB: In the pre-summit information (reported below) there has been much discussion of ‘green growth’, but with little detail of precisely what form this will take.  Discussions taking place at the ExCel Centre here suggest that the use of market mechanisms maybe a preferred method for reducing emissions while also stimulating new markets within the economy–i.e. the carbon finance/trading sector.  While the use of market mechanisms allows emission reductions to follow the most efficient mitigation options financially, there is some concern among the NGO parties here that market mechanisms will not work without hard caps on carbon within the G20 economies to drive forward carbon trading–that is, trade cannot function without a cap.  Such a cap would be largely incompatible with the industrial interests that are also represented at this G20 summit.  Resolving these contradictions to effective mainstreaming of carbon mitigation into growth will be a key decider of the success of this meeting from a climate perspective.

The very idea of carbon trading, which stems from 2001 COP meetings, was strongly contested by many demonstrators at the Climate Campon Bishopsgate, who made their peaceful basecamp outside the European Climate Exchange (FA).

10:11 MMG: The Summit document “The Road to the London Summit: The Plan for Recovery,” emphasises trade, employment, climate and international development, in that order. On climate it articulates the need to

“Call for a low carbon recovery, and agree the need for international leadership on a strategic framework to stimulate investment”

Low-carbon growth is evidently being viewed through a wider sustainability lens in the context of the summit; this lens includes technological capacity-building and the creation of long-lasting trade links.  How sustainable can post-crisis growth really be? The FT has the whole strategically (leaked)communique online.

10:04 FA: This G20 summit has attracted much public and civil society anger, demonstration and hope. Conditional hope because of the new US administration.

09:52 SB: The sub-committee draft represents a departure from a report released earlier this year, with the House suggesting that the use of offsets was not a reliable method for reducing emissions

09:44 SB/MMG: On March 31 2009 the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee of the US Congress released a draft o the ‘American Clean Energy and Security Act 2009′. The release of the US House draft bill will certainly play well at both the G20 and UNFCCC Summits taking place.

“While it is clearly a step forward for the US domestically, as well as for the international negotiations, there are still major problems to be overcome–not least in terms of regulation and methodological problems with REDD at present.  The US must ensure that it is financing projects that are truly sustainable through offsets.” G20 Voice

09:32 SB: Just in from UNFCCC Bonn (ENB) . Canada has said that decisions on how to address consequences are a matter of national sovereignty, and the international response could only consist of recommendations of best practices or considerations.

09: 26 SB: There is some talk in the media hall that expectations may have been placed too high for a single, one-day summit.  UK Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has just made a comment to BBC News to that effect.

09:20 FA: The Business Secretary’s green credentials were the subject of a protest action recently.

09: 16 SB: Low-carbon growth may simply be reduced to agreement on attempting to ‘mainstream’ some environmental considerations in any new infrastructure.

09:13 FA: This meeting is the first opportunity many G20 leaders have will have to make face-to face contact with US President Obama. Much will be negotiated on the fringes of the summit. The course and potency of the global Climate Change negotiation has been strongly impacted by US policy in the past. ANP reports that Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende call directly for greater US action on climate change (RV).

‘I mentioned the fact that in the past the US did not join Kyoto. And that I hoped the US would expressly take part in the reaching of agreements on climate change in Copenhagen.’

09:09 SB: The press area is now filling up as delegations arrive at the Summit centre.

Delegations and press

08:20 FA: The Heads of Delegation and Finance Ministers are arriving, limousine by limousine.

08:03 , and at the Guardian have reported

The draft G20 communique leaked at the weekend makes only the smallest reference to climate change, and appears to be vague on the subject of how green the $2tn (£1.4tn) stimulus package agreed by world leaders should be.

Fuad Ali (FA), Paige Andrews (PA), Simon Billett (SB), Niel Bowerman (NB), Adeline Dontenville (AD), Maria del Mar Galindo (MMG) and Radhika Viswanathan (RV) all contributed to this report.

© EMBARQ

The transport sector in Mexico contributes 18 percent of national CO2 emissions. According to estimations by EMBARQ, transport emissions (other than CO2) are responsible for 4,000 premature deaths and 2.5 million lost work days per year in Mexico City. In other words, transport should be and is a high priority for policy makers of Mexico’s cities - let’s take a look at where it is and where it should be going, at the example of Mexico City:

Who are the culprits?
The Microbuses substitute for the insufficient public transport system are in public opinion often the scapegoats for everything: congestion, risks to safety (due to reckless driving) and air pollution. Leaving particles and other contaminants dangerous to human health aside and focusing just on GHGs, a single Microbus indeed emits almost five times more than a passenger car. BUT we have to consider that a Microbus transports on average about 15 times more people! Thus considering the efficiency of transporting people (or per capita emissions) even the older and more inefficient Microbuses are more efficient than passenger cars.

Congruently, according to a report of Mexico City’s local Ministry of Transport (SETRAVI), private vehicles are responsible for about 50% of GHG emissions while only transporting 20% of the population. And their numbers are growing steadily replacing higher capacity (and thus more efficient) transport options.

What is being done?
It is not that the Government of Mexico City is turning a blind eye on this: a number of projects are being pursued such as the Metrobús, Mexico City’s Bus Rapid Transit System that opened its first line in 2005 the second in 2008, and is planning to install another eight lines covering 243 kilometres by 2012; the extension of the Metro; the Suburban Train; and a zero emissions corridor. These projects are all valuable but as they currently stand a drop in the ocean if they are not pursued more holistically not only through  technological fixes but creating the economic incentives to leave the car at home.

In this respect, it is important to note that SETRAVI although recognizing the problem that the growth in private cars poses, discursively places the main focus on replacing obsolete, dangerous and badly managed Microbuses to provide an equitable transport system for those who cannot afford cars. This of course is laudable and has to be pursued, but even that will not work if the growing congestion and contamination from private cars is not solved.

Lost opportunities
Significantly, the above mentioned efforts are undermined by a number of contradicting policy ideas and lost opportunities: first of all, Mexico City’s (in)famous project “Hoy no Circula” that prohibits cars to circulate on specified days according to license plate endings has failed in that it addresses the symptom not the actual root problem and with increasing incomes people have bought and registered additional cars that allow them to drive continuously.
Second, government is currently considering to abolishing the vehicle tax (most likely to boost the crisis shaken car industry) which will facilitate the entry of even more cars.
Third, due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

, Mexico is about to open its borders for the import of used cars from the United States, which is expected to increase the average age (and thus decrease fuel efficiency) of cars in circulation (currently about ten years) by another five to ten years.
Fourth, although transport systems like the Metrobús do create incentives to leave the car at home and switch to the public transport, ultimately, it is geared towards providing a better public transport system to previous Microbus passengers: due to the absence of parking facilities at Metrobús stations, getting to the nearest Metrobús station requires taking a Microbus, a taxi or walk potentially a long distance, - unthinkable for a car owner.
To do Mexico’s efforts justice: Mexico’s air pollution has supposedly improved but the current motorization rates are creating new problems that need to be addressed comprehensively.

What could be done better?
Just to give an indication of some basic things that could be done better:
First, develop not just public transport facilities but consider the preference of vehicle owners to arrive comfortably and safely at the nearest station by for example providing parking facilities (e.g. a Park and Ride System).
Second, charge those who pollute: in other words, those who can afford to drive big and less efficient cars (a quick and dirty regression of price range of new cars bought and their fuel efficiency based on data from INEGI shows that fuel efficiency decreases with increasing vehicle prices). Rather than abolishing the vehicle tax, introduce a charge according to fuel efficiency, and number of vehicles a person or household owns. The tax receipts should be clearly destined to support public transport projects.
Third, apart from taxes, create additional incentives: from lanes reserved for vehicles with more than two passengers to congestion charges, a range of innovative ideas have been applied around the world that could and should be tried and tested in the case of Mexico City. It will be only a matter of time until drastic action is necessary to prevent the city from choking - starting now to introduce these drastic measures step-by-step might be politically more feasible.

On March 5 2009 Climatico released its first assessment report of national climate policy across twelve of the G20 countries.

This, the first of four reports leading to COP-15 in December 2009, tracks progress in government climate policy between 1st November 2008 and 20th February 2009.  Through this tracking the report draws conclusions about general trends between national policies to understand how climate policy is developing in the major greenhouse gas-emitting countries.   This ‘overview’ is presented in an editorial in Chapter 1 of the report. The report also includes a special chapter on energy policy in China.

Some of the main findings of the report are:

• A significant funding gap is appearing for adaptation, as developing country lack domestic resources and capacity and also appear unable to rely on international transfer mechanisms to meet their financing needs.  It is at present unclear how adaptation will be effectively financed.
• The financial crisis is allowing a mainstreaming of climate change into recovery packages, accelerating otherwise difficult shifts to low carbon growth in developed countries. However, the same crisis is causing a major slow down in projects that do not contribute to financial recovery (see Box 2 on page 10).
• CDM project growth in Mexico and Indonesia is already slowing significantly compared to business projections for early 2009, with most Indonesian projects on hold.

The countries included in the report are: UK, EU, France, Germany, Canada, USA, Mexico, India, China, Indonesia, Japan, Australia.

For enquires please contact:

Simon Billett, Research Director  (simon.billett@climaticoanalysis.org)

Dan Lewer, Communications Director (dan.lewer@climaticoanalysis.org)

© Alfredo Dominguez

REDD is controversial: some consider it essential to halt deforestation in forest rich developing countries, others, a danger to biodiversity, indigenous communities and carbon markets. A view from Mexico shows that REDD is not a panacea to solve deforestation and yet, at least in the case of Mexico, it may be able to contribute to existing programmes that strengthen sustainable (community) forest management.

An approximated 70 – 80% of Mexican forests are ejidos, i.e. under communal management. The economic reforms under President Salinas strengthened property rights of ejidos, yet, given strict land use regulations, communities have very little possibility to gain incomes from forestry related activities, not to mention conservation. Thus, the opportunity cost to leave forests standing is too high for many of the impoverished forest communities and (illegal) land conversion for agricultural purposes is one of the main causes of deforestation according to one of the latest reports of the National Forest Commission (CONAFOR).

But the problem is much more complex: deforestation is not just driven by economic need, but also economic greed (illegal logging (supposedly responsible for 25% of deforestation) and tourism developments), public infrastructure development (from highways to oil drilling), forest fires, activities of drug cartels, local power conflicts and unsustainable ideas of economic modernization (these complexities are very well described in an article of the World Rainforest Movement on the devastating forest fires of 1998).

Ejidos although legally holding titles to the land, have lost power over how to manage their resources. Either they convert the forest to productive use (e.g. agriculture) or somebody else will come and do it, in the best case, paying them some sort of compensation, in the worst case, murdering those that try to cling to their land or protect the forest.

In this scenario, REDD earnings could support existing programmes to a) decrease the opportunity costs of conserving forests; b) do justice to communities who protect their forests and pay for their conservation of environmental services; and c) support government and communities in fighting against illegal land conversion and deforestation.

But it will probably not be able to do much more than that, as a little back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests. Mongabay, a site that “seeks to raise interest in and appreciation of wild lands and wildlife” calculates that Mexico could earn some USD70 million for a 10% reduction in deforestation (using an optimistic price of USD30 per ton of CO2 reduced). According to their calculations, this would equal a return of USD2,100 (!) per hectare of reduced deforestation.

BUT what does one hectare of reduction in deforestation imply ? (that is what Mongabay does not calculate).
Mexico’s National Forest Commission (CONAFOR) estimated in a presentation on Mexico’s advances in preparing for REDD (June 2008) that one hectare of reduction in deforestation requires 180 hectares under sustainable forest management and 150 hectares under conservation. Consequently, the various government programmes that are expected to cover almost 20 million hectares of forest between 2007 and 2012 will yield an estimated reduction in deforestation of 310,000 hectares. If REDD pays only for actual reduction in deforestation the per hectare value of REDD earnings -considering the entire forest area under sustainable management and conservation- will only yield: USD34 (not including transaction costs for project development, verification, monitoring, etc). That is maybe better than nothing, it might even be more than what some farmers earn from small scale farming activities, yet, it will not be enough to keep private interests at bay.

Thus, REDD alone will not solve deforestation. However, given that Mexico has created a strong legal and regulatory framework and is working on expanding its market incentives for sustainable forest management, REDD could provide financial support to strengthening these efforts.