GeoLog

#policy

GeoPolicy: COP24 – key outcomes and what it’s like to attend

GeoPolicy: COP24 – key outcomes and what it’s like to attend

Earlier this month, the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24), was held in Katowice, Poland.  COPs are held annually and provide world leaders, policy workers, scientists and industry leaders with the opportunity to negotiate and determine how best to tackle climate change and reduce emissions on a global level. With so much at stake, these negotiations can be tense.

Some COPs see more action than others. COP24 had relatively high stakes with delegates having to establish a rulebook that will allow the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement to be put into practice in 2020 [1]. The Paris Climate Agreement was established during COP21. It acknowledges climate change as an international threat and that preventing the Earth’s temperature from rising 2°C above pre-industrial levels should be a global priority. Creating a rulebook that will instruct countries on what they must do to achieve this is no easy feat.

This blog will give you some details about what was achieved at COP24, and perhaps more importantly, what wasn’t. But firstly, it will outline what it’s actually like to attend a COP with some personal insights from Sarah Connors, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Science Officer and former EGU Policy Fellow.

Initial impressions from COP24

What struck me (as a first timer) was all the different levels of meetings, you have the top-level negotiations, which lots of observers can join and even ask questions at some bits (rather than just the official delegates). Sometimes it would be students speaking – which was cool to see. Then there’s smaller negotiation levels going on that are closed”

Activities for COP participants outside of the negotiations and high-level sessions

The whole meeting is mostly in two halves. There’s the official negations bit and then there are official side events and pavilions that several countries or organisations have paid for where they will have their own smaller events. The IPCC pavilion was something I worked on.”

Then there’s load of other events going on around the city, hosted by NGOs and charities. There’s also the occasional protest. It all felt a bit disjointed at times actually – not sure that’s a good thing.

It’s a bit like EGU in the fact your need to study all the different schedules to see which events you’d like to see/attend.”

Interacting with the policymaking delegates

“In terms of the science-policy interface, the SBSTA events or official side events were opportunities for the IPCC lead scientists to present the findings from the IPCC special report. Delegates got to ask questions there to help understanding.”

A few delegates also came to the IPCC pavilion to ask more about the what the science was saying about the differences between a 1.5°C and 2°C increase in temperature.”

So… What did the COP24 achieve?

The rulebook, which was the key task of COP24 and which will be used as an operating manual after 2020 was, for the most part, agreed upon. This is a positive step because, as UN Secretary General António Guterres, states “A completed work programme will unleash the potential of the Paris Agreement. It will build trust and make clear that countries are serious about addressing climate change” [1].

From 2024, all countries will have to report their emissions (and progress in reducing them) every two years. However, instead of requiring countries to adhere to a single, scientifically sound method of reporting their emissions, the text permits countries to use “nationally appropriate methodologies”. This could result in countries under-reporting their emissions with the land use sector being particularly susceptible to creative accounting [1].

A number of countries pledged to increased their climate pledges in 2020, including: the EU, UK, Argentina, Mexico, India, Canada, Ukraine and Jamaica. Some large private sector companies also made ambitious pledges including Maersk, the world’s largest shipping company, which pledged to eliminate its carbon impact by 2050.

What wasn’t achieved?

  1. The IPCC’s Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC wasn’t fully embraced: Although the vast majority of national representatives wanted to “welcome” the report which was commissioned as part of the Paris Agreement, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait only wanted to “note” the report. This resulted in a watered-down statement which welcomed the “timely completion” of the report and “invited” countries to make use of it. Although this may seem like semantics, it demonstrated the differing levels of engagement in climate action that countries are willing to have and pressed the issue of whether new legislation is effectively using the scientific evidence commissioned by policymakers.
  2. Lack of clarity on climate finance: During the Paris Climate Agreement, donor nations committed to mobilising $100 billion annually from 2020 to fund climate action in developing countries. Not only is it uncertain whether donor countries will be able to reach this contribution target by 2020, but there is a lack of clarity as to what constitutes “climate finance”. Can countries report aspects of their development add as “climate action aid” or should this be separated? What are the impacts of this?
  3. No agreement on Article 6, voluntary carbon markets: The final decision on Article 6 which sets the rules for voluntary carbon markets (such as carbon credits) will be made during COP25 next year. Carbon credits are given to countries based on their emissions-cutting efforts and carbon sinks, subsequently helping countries to meet their emissions targets. During the COP, Brazil pushed for a change in the wording of the final document which would have allowed each party in the carbon credit trade to make a “corresponding adjustment” to their emissions inventories. There was concern that this clause may allow countries to “double count” the emissions traded and as a result a final decision was not agreed upon this year.

What comes next?

COP25 will now be held in Chile rather than Brazil after Brazil’s president-elect Jair Bolsonaro reneged on hosting the event. During this meeting the final elements of the Paris rulebook will be finalised and work will begin on emissions targets for 2030 and beyond.

Additional reading

GeoPolicy: Horizon Geoscience!

GeoPolicy: Horizon Geoscience!

For the last few months the EGU has been working towards both hosting a dinner debate in Brussels, Belgium, and publishing the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report which was based on a survey conducted within the geoscience community earlier this year. Both of these endeavours were undertaken together with the European Federation of Geologists (EFG) and had similar aims: to enhance collaboration between policymakers and scientists and to improve the geoscience community’s science-policy engagement.

Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report – key findings

Earlier this year, the EGU together with the EFG, conducted the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey to collect feedback on areas of the EU’s Horizon 2020 research funding programme that the geoscience community felt should be continued or extended and those which could be improved upon in the upcoming EU research framework programme, Horizon Europe.

This survey was conducted during the 2018 EGU General Assembly and many of you may remember either completing it or seeing posters around the convention centre advertising the opportunity.

Does this look familiar? Advertisement for the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey

Due to its thematic diversity and its size, the geoscience community has a significant representation within European research programmes. The survey aimed to give researchers who have taken part in Horizon 2020, or who plan to take part in Horizon Europe, the opportunity to voice their opinion.

Although the survey asked a wide variety of questions, only those where clear results were found were included in the Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report. However, all of the survey responses (quantitative and qualitative) can be seen online here. Qualitative responses supported by the quantitative answers and cited by numerous survey respondents were also included in the report and give insight into some of the answers from respondents.

The full report was publicly released during the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate (which is summarised below) along with a more condensed 2-page summary. Some of the key results that are outlined in detail in the report include:

    1. 1. Generally, survey respondents felt very positively about the impact that the Horizon 2020 Programme had on collaboration (both across EU countries and between scientific disciplines)

 

 

    1. 2. Despite many areas within the geosciences being used by the private sector, survey respondents generally felt that Horizon 2020 had only been moderately successful in generating private sector investment within the geosciences. 48% of respondents believed that the programme was somewhat generating private sector investment, but only 6% thought it was generating it to a large extent.

    3. 24% of respondents thought that the distribution of projects between applied and fundamental research was not fair at all.

For more details on these results and others, please read the full Horizon 2020 Geoscience Survey Report.

Horizon Geoscience: overcoming societal challenges, creating change

The Horizon Geoscience dinner debate was held on the evening of September 26 in Brussels. Co-organised by the EFG, the event included a mix of scientists, industry leaders and policymakers from a range of different areas within the Commission.

Panel members during the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate. From Left to right: Jonathan Bamber, John Ludden Lieve Weirinck, Jean-Eric Paquet and Vitor Correia

The evening was opened by both the EGU President Jonathan Bamber and the EFG President Vitor Correia. As EGU’s policy officer, I presented some of the key results from the Horizon Geoscience Survey, after which Iain Stewart set the scene for the evening.

One of the highlights of the evening was the high-level panel session which gave the evening’s participant’s the opportunity to hear from respected representatives from the EU Parliament, EU Commission, and geoscience community, namely:

  • Lieve Wierinck, Belgian Member of the European Parliament,
  • Jean-Eric Paquet, Director-General at the European Commission’s DG for Research & Innovation
  • John Ludden, British Geological Survey Chief Executive

The round-table discussions that were held during dinner also sparked a lively debate and highlighted things that need to be addressed to tackle societal challenges

Some of the key things that were mentioned during these round-table discussions included the importance of increasing public trust in both science and policymaking, the need for greater dialogue between the sectors, and the need to integrate early career scientists within industry, academia and policy.

For an extensive summary of the dinner debate please see the EGU news item, EGU and EFG establish dialogue with policy makers on how the geosciences can help overcome Europe’s major societal challenges.

If you have any questions regarding the report of the Horizon Geoscience dinner debate, please don’t hesitate to get in touch via policy@egu.eu.

GeoPolicy: Bridging the gap between science and decision makers – a new tool for nuclear emergencies affecting food and agriculture

GeoPolicy: Bridging the gap between science and decision makers – a new tool for nuclear emergencies affecting food and agriculture

Amelia Lee Zhi Yi, the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has developed an online system to assist in improving the response capabilities of authorities in the event of an emergency caused by natural hazards. The Decision Support System for Nuclear Emergencies Affecting Food and Agriculture (DSS4NAFA), provides a clear overview of radioactive contamination of crops and agricultural lands through improved data management and visualisation, it also assists in decision support processes by suggesting management actions to decision makers. In this interview, we have the pleasure to introduce Ms Amelia Lee Zhi Yi, working at the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture to speak about DSS4NAFA.

Nuclear Emergency Response (NER) for food and agriculture – why is that important and what does it entail?

In the event of a nuclear or radiological emergency, the response should be swift in the interest of human health. After ensuring the well-being of the population, it is necessary to prioritise the assessment of possible radioactive contamination of crops and agricultural lands to avoid ingestion of radioactivity.

Proper data management, data visualisation and risk communication are essential for efficient response to a nuclear emergency. Factors that should be considered for such response include support for sampling and laboratory analysis, optimal allocation of manpower and analytical instruments, and integrated communication between stakeholders.

To make well-informed decisions on for instance planting and food restrictions, food safety authorities need to have a good understanding of the radiological conditions after a fallout event. This is accomplished through the collection of environmental samples such as soil and plants, and food products that are then analysed using consistent methods in qualified laboratories. Further, these data should be displayed in an intuitive manner so that authorities will be able to interpret the data under stressful, time-bound conditions. Finally, to reduce confusion and clearly communicate decisions made to the public, standardised communication protocols of the decisions made by policymakers need to be implemented.

How can technology assist us in this process? What is DSS4NAFA?

Innovative information technology (IT)-based methods can assist in optimising processes in NER. Some examples include streamlining data transfer using cloud-based platforms paired with mobile technologies, facilitating decision making using advanced visualisation tools, and communicating risk to the public using pre-defined correspondence templates.

The Decision Support System for Nuclear Emergencies Affecting Food and Agriculture (DSS4NAFA), is a cloud-based IT-DSS tool developed by the Soil and Water Management & Crop Nutrition Laboratory, under the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. While it was originally developed as a system for nuclear emergency response management and communication, its ability to discern data quality, to provide user-friendly spatio-temporal visualisations for decision makers, and ease in creation of communication materials makes it a good candidate tool for usage in natural hazard risk mitigation.

The beta version of DSS4NAFA is planned to be released in August 2018 for testing by volunteer member states.

General overview of how DSS4NAFA works. After a nuclear or radiological fallout event affecting food and agriculture, the system assists decision makers by allocating samplers and laboratories according to proximity, allows for data to be input into a mobile device and sent to a cloud server immediately, and visualises data for intuitive decision making (Source FAO-IAEA).

How does DSS4NAFA support public authorities in emergencies?

DSS4NAFA contains modules which provide logistical support to decision makers in defining sampling location, sampler allocation and laboratory allocation. It also functions as a powerful visual interpretation tool that brings together multi-dimensional data usually handled to make decisions on planting and food restrictions in a nuclear emergency response situation.  Some of the functionalities of the modules are as below:

Data management:

  • Standardised data input with pre-determined data entry fields and format
  • Data housed within one server to ensure ease of data analysis
  • All data collected in the field using mobile devices and are sent directly to the server

Data visualisation:

  • GIS based visualisation for instinctive understanding of situation on the ground
  • “Logmap” for at-a-glance sampler and laboratory analyses status
  • Comprehensive information, such as current and historical decision actions, intuitively displayed on the Food Restriction Dashboard

Logistics and decision support:

  • Sampling assignments proposed based on crop calendar and land use type
  • Food and planting restrictions suggested based on the movable levels set by authorities
  • Public communication module

 

The Food Restriction Dashboard is a platform in DSS4NAFA whereby radioactivity information is collated considering the spatial distribution and time resolution of the accident, and suggests food and planting restrictions based on the level of risk and the specified tolerance levels (Source FAO-IAEA).

What feedback did you get from real users during the design/development of the DSS?

The development of DSS4NAFA was highly iterative and findings from the process were invaluable. Some lessons learned during its development include the necessity for stakeholder involvement during the design process, the usage of a “one-house approach” for centralised data, and the importance of building a tool that is flexible enough to be used during emergency response and routine monitoring operations.

The system has generated a lot of interest when shown during several IAEA workshops and conferences such as at EGU, indicating the need for this type of system.

What do you think will be the main challenges in the application of the DSS4NAFA?

Two challenges are foreseen in the deployment of DSS4NAFA. The first is to explain the benefits of the system to countries with pre-existing Nuclear Emergency Response systems. We are confident that we can succeed as DSS4NAFA is modular, thus Member States can select and implement the components that suit their needs best.

Secondly, there could be some learning associated with the implementation of DSS4NAFA. To facilitate this process for governmental data analysts, user experience will be one of the major focus for improvement during the beta testing phase. We strive to develop DSS4NAFA such that the system will be intuitive for use to its fullest potential, even with minimal prior training.

The development of DSS4NAFA is part of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division Mandate in Preparedness and Response to Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies Affecting Food and Agriculture to promote the management of intra- and interagency emergency preparedness and response to nuclear accidents and radiological events affecting food and agriculture, including in the application of agricultural countermeasures.

by Jonathan Rizzi, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research

Jonathan Rizzi is the incoming ECS representative for the EGU’s Natural Hazard division. He has a bachelor in GIS and Remote Sensing and a master and a PhD in Environmental Sciences. He is a researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research and has worked in the field of climate change and risk assessment for the last several years.

Editor’s Note: This post first appeared on the EGU Natural Hazards (NH) Division blog. Read the original post here.