By Nic Maclellan
As countries prepare for the next round of global climate negotiations in Glasgow, major powers are organising a series of summits and initiatives to ramp up ambition towards the targets set by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.
Pacific island leaders, however, are concerned that existing emissions reduction is nowhere near enough to stave off devastating damage to livelihoods and environment. There are also difficulties translating climate funding pledges into action on the ground, reinforcing the Forum’s decision to establish a new US$1.5 billion Pacific Resilience Fund.
US President Joe Biden aims to improve America’s global prestige after the Trump era, hosting a virtual Leaders’ Summit on Climate on 22-23 April. As countries focus on the global coronavirus pandemic and US-China competition, Biden’s climate envoy John Kerry is hoping the climate crisis will be high on the agenda at the next G-7 summit, to be held in the United Kingdom in June.
The new surge of summitry aims to generate stronger climate pledges before the next round of formal climate negotiations at the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to be held in Glasgow next November.
US pledges
The United States accounts for 15 per cent of global CO2 emissions and is the largest historical emitter, so the Biden Leaders’ Summit saw a welcome reversal of the climate denialism of the Trump White House. Three countries from Oceania were amongst 40 world leaders invited to the virtual summit. Australia and New Zealand participated alongside the Republic of Marshall Islands, the only Forum Island Country at the meeting (Fiji’s government expressed concern it had not merited an invitation, as a former COP host and incoming Forum chair).
Highlighting his country’s role in the Higher Ambition Coalition, RMI President David Kabua stated: “Too often … countries hear the excuse that steep emission cuts are too costly, but political signals, especially from the major economies, shape decisions on investment and innovation for low-carbon pathways. Now is the moment for the signal to be unequivocal. The recovery from COVID-19 gives us a rare chance to invest in a safer and healthier world.”
With many countries already committed to net zero emissions by 2050, President Biden joined a number of key industrial states to make new pledges for interim targets in 2030. He committed the United States to a 50 to 53 per cent reduction of emissions by 2030 (compared to 2005). Japan announced a 46 per cent cut by 2030 (relative to 2013), while the United Kingdom set out an ambitious target of a 78 per cent reduction by 2035 (compared to 1990). Canada also promised to reduce emissions 40 to 45 per cent by 2030 from 2005 levels.
While welcoming these commitments, Pacific Islands Forum Secretary General Dame Meg Taylor said “it is disheartening that the urgency to act decisively to curb the global climate change emergency has not been taken favourably by other major emitters.”
Once again, the largest member of the Pacific Islands Forum continues to lag behind other industrialised powers. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison made no new pledges at the summit. He continues to dance around making a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 – a pledge already made by 110 countries and the European Union (with a flurry of publicity, Canberra will no doubt make an announcement about its target for 2050 either at the G-7, the 2021 Forum leaders meeting or just before COP26 Glasgow).
Morrison’s government, however, has refused to commit to new interim targets for 2030 beyond the existing pledge of 26 to 28 per cent. Longstanding criticism from Forum Island countries over Australian exports of coal and other fossil fuels is now matched by unprecedented public criticism from Washington. As with the Biden Summit, the G-7 meeting will put political pressure on the Morrison government, with UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson will promoting carbon border taxes, the phase-out of coal and green finance for developing countries.
Climate finance
President Biden has asked Congress for US$2.5 billion for international climate financing, including US$1.2 billion for the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a key funding mechanism used by most Forum Island Countries (except the French colonies). Biden aims to double America’s annual public climate finance to developing countries by 2024, compared to the amount pledged by Obama administration in 2013-16. As part of this goal, the US aims to triple the amount committed to adaptation by 2024.
However this sum is smaller than the US$3 billion pledged to the GCF by the Obama administration, a pledge abandoned by President Trump after just $1 billion had been transferred (The Morrison government also followed the Trump administration to abandon GCF funding, even though Australia had previously been co-chair of the global finance mechanism).
The failure of other industrialised nations to pledge significant new climate funding at the Biden summit is a serious problem. Many developing countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement are conditional on prior action and finance by OECD nations. Research from the journal Climate Policy in 2019 reported: “No less than 136 countries have made their NDCs partially or wholly conditional on receiving one or more types of support – climate finance for mitigation or adaptation; technology transfer; and capacity building.”
The failure of OECD countries to meet the Paris Agreement target for global climate finance by 2020 has angered many developing countries. Following the Biden summit, Dame Meg Taylor said: “It is also regrettable that no new climate finance commitments were made, despite developing countries being fully aware that the promised US$100 billion per year by 2020 has not been delivered.”
For many years, island leaders have also decried the imbalance between funding for community adaptation compared to emissions reductions. In 2020, US$3.4 billion in global finance was allocated – from this, $1.6 billion went to mitigation projects, $309 million to REDD+ forestry initiatives, $894 million to cross cutting programs but only $586 million for adaptation.
Dame Meg Taylor said: “We hear John Kerry and Boris Johnson talking a lot more about adaptation. But they’ve got to start looking at where it really matters. Adaptation really matters in the front line and that’s where the Pacific is.”
Given the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic and the ongoing climate emergency, post-Covid recovery should focus on climate-aligned initiatives. Key partners however, are moving slowly at a time Pacific states are taking on COVID-induced debt. A new study from Oxford University for the United Nations Environment Program shows Australia is the worst performer of the world’s 50 largest economies for “green recovery” spending after the COVID pandemic.
As one example, only one green initiative for regional economic recovery was highlighted in the latest budget papers for Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: the Australian Climate Finance Partnership (ACFP) for 2020–2024, which “will catalyse private sector investment in climate adaptation and mitigation projects in the Pacific.” Australia has contributed $140 million to the Asian Development Bank for this ACFP initiative. However despite the publicity, the ADB told Islands Business that “the fund was recently announced and as such ADB is focusing on pipeline development and has not yet signed ACFP-funded transactions.”
Despite significant energy investment in the May 2021 Australian budget, the largest amounts were channelled into the gas industry rather than renewable energy programs. The Oxford University study reports that Australia has spent US$2 billion on green initiatives during the coronavirus recovery, a much smaller amount that countries like France (US$57bn), South Korea (US$54bn), Germany (US$47bn) or the United Kingdom (US$42bn).
Pacific Resilience Facility
Seeking to increase community access to climate finance, the Pacific Islands Forum has just issued a prospectus seeking capital for a new Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF). Launched on 12 May, the prospectus describes PRF as a “regionally-based, internationally-supported, and community-focused fund”, aiming to increase investment in disaster preparedness in vulnerable communities.
This regional funding mechanism was proposed at the 2017 Forum Economic Ministers Meeting and endorsed by Forum leaders at their 2019 summit in Tuvalu. For Dame Meg Taylor, the creation of the PRF is “the first time that the Pacific takes responsibility for setting up an institution it can run, so we can try and look after ourselves.”
The outgoing Forum Secretary General noted: “At the moment we’ve got the Green Climate Fund and the GEF, and you have funding that comes through the Asian Development Bank. But this PRF is a small niche, focusing very much on individuals and the kinds of projects that slip through the cracks.”
Forum Secretariat staff have been working on the prospectus with former Commonwealth Deputy Secretary General Deodat Maharaj, who has worked on similar initiatives in the Caribbean and Mozambique. Tuvalu’s UN ambassador and other diplomats have been working with the UN Secretary General’s Office to plan a pledging conference in New York, possibly next October, to raise US$1.5 billion for the PRF from development partners and philanthropic foundations. This core capital will by invested and the PRF will draw on interest, aiming to disburse US$180 million to projects over the first three years of operations. The new fund will initially be housed within the Forum Secretariat in Suva until a fully-fledged independent organisation can be established, which Samoa has offered to host.
Despite this initiative, the withdrawal of five Micronesian nations from the Forum poses a major challenge to maintaining a common regional voice. As she comes to the end of her term as Forum Secretary General, Taylor argues for more island-led, regional initiatives: “Pacific countries and Pacific people have to think creatively, innovatively and find ways to create institutions to look after themselves, rather than always depending on multilateral institutions and donor partners. It’s important that leaders stick together on this…so we can control our own domain, our ocean domain.”
G-7 action on climate
The seven industrialised powers that make up the G-7 have all made ambitious commitments for climate action by 2030. But as part of increased G-7 engagement with Africa and the Asia Pacific region, Australia, India, the Republic of Korea and South Africa have been invited as observers to the next summit, to be held in Cornwall on 11-13 June. It’s noticeable that all four invitees have yet to increase their targets for 2030 emissions reductions.
The major challenge for the G-7 is to translate summit pledges into action on the ground, and revise policies that contradict new commitments (including the expansion of oil, gas, coal and other fossil fuel projects, or ongoing subsidies to emissions intensive industries). Major banks in G-7 nations continue to loan significant funds to fossil fuel projects in developing countries (although South Korea has just made a crucial commitment to end overseas financing of coal-fired power plants, a move being considered by Japan).
As part of its post-COVID economic recovery, the Biden administration has pledged significant investment in so-called “green infrastructure.” But these commitments must be measured against the ongoing structural role of coal and shale oil in US industry. Beyond this, the United States does not include carbon emissions by the US military in their reporting, even though military emissions are greater than the annual carbon production of 140 countries in the world!
The widely welcomed pledges by President Biden rely on his Democratic Party maintaining control of the US House of Representatives and Senate in midterm elections in 2022. With the ongoing crisis of democracy in Washington, the US political system has a poor track record in implementing its climate pledges: President Clinton failed to win Senate support to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and President Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and Green Climate Fund in 2017. A conservative Congress after 2022 could roll back Biden’s executive orders, revoking initiatives such as fuel efficiency guidelines for vehicles or restrictions on fossil fuel projects in federal parks.
This gap between pledges and results is also evident with China, which is the largest source of carbon emissions in the world today (though its share of the historic carbon dioxide accumulated in the atmosphere is small compared to the United States and Europe).
At the Biden Summit, President Xi Jinping reaffirmed his commitment that China will reach net zero emissions by 2060. President Xi has stated that China is also on track to reach its 2030 goal, which requires a 60 to 65 per cent drop in the economy’s carbon intensity compared to 2005. China is the world’s largest producer of PV solar panels and wind turbines, and leads the world in installed capacity of these renewable technologies. Even at a time of US-China tensions, Beijing has also signalled it is willing to work with the United States and other countries on climate action – speaking to the United Nations last September, President Xi called on UN member nations to “achieve a green recovery of the world economy in the post-COVID era.”
Despite these commitments, China’s carbon emissions have been steadily increasing since 1990, especially from coal-fired power plants and emissions intensive industries like steel, aluminium and cement. To meet President Xi’s “Made in China 2025” plan for increased development and high-technology capacity, China is committed to greater investment in coal. The Climate Action Tracker website notes that China’s post-COVID recovery remain carbon-intensive: “Most worryingly, China remains committed to supporting the coal industry while the rest of the world experiences a decline, and is now home to half of the world’s coal capacity.”
Time is short. Carbon budgets proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underestimate current and future warming, omit important climate system feedback mechanisms, and make dangerous assumptions about risk-management. The current level of greenhouse gases is enough for around 2°C of warming or more, and 1.5°C of warming is likely by 2030 or earlier, a product of past emissions.
There’s still a long way to go despite recent pledges. Climate analyst Liane Schalatek has argued that COP26 must address longstanding Pacific concerns “linking concessional finance to climate vulnerability (especially for Small Island Developing States) instead of country incomes, a surge in new commitments for adaptation finance, and last but not least progress in discussions on paying for climate-related loss and damage.”
