Rana Plaza and Talanoa Dialogue

Happy May Sunday, dear climateschool readers! I've had a short hiatus due to exam season starting up here at NTNU, but in just 6 weeks time I will have finished the teacher degree. In the meantime; climate-news does not take exam breaks. Therefore, this blog post will be a short summary of two important things that's been happening while I've been away reading pedagogy literature: 

- The 24th of April was the 5 year mark since the clothing factory Rana Plaza collapsed in Bangladesh and 1138 textile workers died that day. Last year, I attended a meeting about the 4 year mark, and it was then announced that what needed to come in place was a binding agreement where the brands we know sign a uniform agreement of openness and transparency, so that an accident and working conditions like Rana Plaza can never happen again. The Future in Our hands has done a great job following the progress of this security agreement. However, they revealed that the giant IKEA has not signed this agreement. This is a huge shame, because the agreement works, and is already making a significant change in the life of the textile workers. To get a visual of how it was like to experience an ordinary day before the collapse of the Rana Plaza, The Future in our Hands has put together this short video.  

If you want to take action after knowing this, like I do, you can go to IKEAs facebook page and ask them to sign the agreement.  For example: (in Norwegian) "Kjære IKEA, skriv under den livreddende sikkerhetsavtalen for tekstilarbeiderne i Bangladesh!" (And you may also link to the Future in our Hands article) 

- There has also been a UNFCCC Climate change meeting in Bonn from the 30th of April - 10th of May. This was the start of the Talanoa Dialogue : "

"Talanoa is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of Talanoa is to share stories, build empathy and to make wise decisions for the collective good. The process of Talanoa involves the sharing of ideas, skills and experience through storytelling.

During the process, participants build trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. Blaming others and making critical observations are inconsistent with building mutual trust and respect, and therefore inconsistent with the Talanoa concept. Talanoa fosters stability and inclusiveness in dialogue, by creating a safe space that embraces mutual respect for a platform for decision making for a greater good.". 

A short recap of the outcome of this meeting: 

• There was progress made in the the Paris "rulebook"
• The next meeting will be held in Bangkok, so a negotiation text will be made to prepare for this session
• There is still key factors in the technical and financial negotiations that needs to be worked out

Thanks to ClimateTracker for the infographic: 

Book recommendation De best intensjoner - Oljelandet i klimakampen

De beste intensjoner - Oljelandet i klimakampen by Anne Karin Sæther, or "The Best of intentions - The oil country in the climate battle" is one of the best books I've read this year. It got great reviews when it came out in 2017, and is still a must read for anyone who wishes to understand the ultimate paradox that is how the Norwegian oil industry and climate legislation has been in bed together since day one. 

The book gives you the historical background since we first found oil in 1969 at Ekofisk, and how the newly established Oil Office compiled "the ten oil commandments" that would govern Norwegian oil and climate policies in the years to come. It was decided that the oil should be extracted at a "moderate" estimate. This meant that Norway had given itself a limit to how much oil that should be extracted each year, based on the precautionary measures that we did not know how it would go. Later in the book, it is revealed that this "moderate" estimate were in fact higher than what the earliest oil pioners could ever imagine that Norway would extract of oil, but the principle of a moderate oil extractive pace was established to stay. 

Then, we are presented with how Norway led the way as the climate leading nation, with the worlds first environmental minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland. In 1987 she presented the report "Our common future" in the UN's climate assembly, where she recognised the impact oil extractions would have on our climate. As one of the first nations, Norway presented its first climate law, which was to "stabilise" the CO2 emissions during the 1990s or latest in the year 2000. 

However, in the Norwegian Parliament and oil industry, it was recognised how this climate law would hinder the oil industry. This is when the idea of climate quotas was first invented. It became  crucial for Norway's new and growing industry, that gave Norway so much wealth, to not be strangled by climate legislation. Therefore, in the next UN assembly, the then statistician Jens Stoltenberg, presented for the environmental ministers the idea that emission cuts could be made outside ones own country. It was in Norway's interest that you could pay other countries a quota, in stead of reducing emissions in your own country. 

In the next UN assembly, where Norway was part of negotiating forward a climate agreement, our new politics on CO2 emissions made us unpopular. Norway was criticised for caring more about national interests, than the climate, and that our protectionism was delaying the work with the climate agreement. 

These are the events the Norwegian oil adventure was based upon. "The best intentions" then goes on and present some of the arguments the Norwegian oil industry has used to defend its further use of more oil extraction in a time when we know how closely linked the oil industry is to climate change and rising CO2 emissions. The myths of "the worlds cleanest oil" and "Norwegian oil to the worlds poor" are dissected and revealed. Further, the book talks about Statoils role in Norway, and how this has affected the Parliament and our politicians. It also discusses modern oil debates, as the Lofoten area.  

This book is for anyone who wishes to understand how and why Norways biggest industry has played such a huge role in our modern history and policy making. It is also for anyone who is interested in Norwegian politics, international climate politics or just wishes to read a really well written book. 

COP23 Finished

This past week, the historical climate lawsuit has taken place in Oslo District Court, but I will follow that up in next weeks blog post, when the court case is finished. However, another monumental climate event, COP23, finished this week, and this is what we know so far. 

The climate awareness spreading site Climatetracker has put together this helpful infograph to visualise what happened at COP. A positive outcome is that parties (UN lingo for countries) agreed that the processes must move quicker. The main objective, namely creating a way forward with he Paris agreement, was achieved. 

The process forward is called the Tanaloua Dialogue. This is a process that helps each country to hold each other accountable with the emission cuts they promised in the Paris agreement. These emission cuts are referred to as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). However, it turns out that the emissions each country intends to cut is not enough for the world to reach the 2 degree target, and definitely not the 1,5 degree target. Therefore there needs to be a process that reviews and increases these NDCs over time. This is the Tanaloua Dialogue. 

The COP is happening near the end of each year, but in the meantime there is a constant negotiation process going on in the UFCCC. These sessions are referred to as intersessionals, and are also worth following. For an overview of important dates on the climate calendar, have a look at the bottom of this piece from Carbonbrief. 

COP23

Today, COP23 (Conference of the Parties) started. This is the UN's climate negotiations, under the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). Did I mention that they love abbreviations at COP?

This years COP is taking place in Bonn, Germany, but is hosted by Fiji. This is the first time a small island state is hosting COP. Fiji was the first state to formally ratify the Paris agreement, the global climate agreement from 2015 where almost all nations has come together to limit global warming to 2 degree celsius, but aiming for 1,5 degree celsius. Before coming to COP, Fijis prime minister announced that having a small island state as host would affect this years negotiations. In his opening speech, he also said that: 'It is a message to the world that all 7.5 billion people on earth are in the same canoe. We are all affected by climate change and we all need to act'. This is the very true, even though some states, as small island states will feel the effects of climate change sooner than others. 

The key thing to sort out during this COP is making a 'rulebook' for how the Paris agreement should be implemented, and how states should be able to hold each other accountable and have transparency to see that each other are delivering their set targets. Norway's minister of climate and environment, Vidar Helgesen actually went as far as saying that 'it's a good sign if nothing much is heard from this meeting'. This might be also be a reference to the tense fact that Trump previously this year announced that he was going to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement. Formally though, this is a process that takes years, so as per this COP, the US is still in the negotiations. Therefore, the hopes are that they won't try to block good initiatives even though they don't see a reason to helping this planet come together to solve the climate problem. 

Because COP isn't needed less now, it is needed more. 2017 is currently in the lead to become one of the three warmest years currently on record, including that it has been a year with an abnormal amount of extreme weather events all across the globe. Currently, we are on the track for a 3 degree celsius warmer globe, which means that our current efforts are not enough to combat the rising temperatures. 

Another key discussion topic of COP23 is 'loss and damage' - the mechanisms that is compensating developing nations that has done little to cause the climate change, but has been affected the most. 

The outcome that is most desired from COP23 is both getting the 'rulebook' in place for next years negotiations, but also the belief that UN still has a vital part to play in how we organise joint efforts on a global scale to tackle problems facing humanity. This isn't asking for little, but as Christiana Figueres, COP president of the COP21 in Paris said 'Paris (agreement) is everyone’s deal. It belongs to cities, businesses, NGOs and all of global civil society as much as it belongs to nation-states'. Also, it is the best we've got. 

The COP22 is finished, and this is what we got out of it

COP22 finished in the early hours this morning, and what we have as a result from it is this document http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/marrakech_nov_2016/application/pdf/marrakech_action_proclamation.pdf It is a fairly short read, but to summarise it for you, the main points are these: 

- The Parties acknowledges the importance of the Paris agreements earlier commitment

- They have set themselves a 2 year time frame to come up with all the technical measurement mechanisms from the Paris agreement. 

Besides from this, the COP22 set out to promise to be an ActionCOP, but turned out to be more of an in-actionCOP. However, the climate minister of Norway are pleased with the outcome, and this framework gives the parties clear ground rules on how to work ahead, so COP24 should promise to be an action filled on yet again! 

On Article 10 in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

A potential positive consequence of the petroleum industry’s expansion in Finnmark for the Sami population is the possible employment possibilities. Meanwhile, there are some prerequisites that must be in order for this to be beneficial for the Sámi. Experiences made when the ‘Snøhvit’ field was being constructed saw that the wider community was greatly beneficial, in that already existing building firms could be part of aiding the ‘Snøhvit’ building site. There are no known documentations on how this employment affected the Sámi part of the population. It is therefore necessary to explore why the Sámi population can differ so greatly from the non-Sámi. Previous research done by Vistnes et. al. (2008) shows that education relevant for the petroleum industry tends to be lower in municipalities where the majority of the population is Sámi, or have strong Sámi connections, such as all of Finnmark. This means that the competence building that the petroleum industry promise would benefit the inhabitants of Finnmark only to a lesser degree will benefit the Sámi population. Two possible outcomes of this situation that the impact assessment report suggest is that either the Sámi could work in the parts of the petroleum that does not require higher education, or that by seeing how the petroleum industry is growing be motivated to take the necessary higher education. This however is based on the assumptions that 1. The Sámi want to work for the petroleum industry and 2. That they are not already otherwise employed or preoccupied. The indirect effects of this expansion is that the non-Sámi population might grow in cities close to Sámi settlements, and in cities with a high percentage of Sámi inhabitants such as Kirkenes and Vadsø, and this can lead to a higher demand of Sámi made products. Another possible outcome of the indirect effect is that the competition from the petroleum industry will take workers away from what have traditionally been Sámi livelihoods, leading to the diminishing of the Sámi way of life. 

During the past 30-40 years Finnmark has experienced a depopulation of 10 percent, this holds true for municipalities with a strong Sámi connection as well. In Kvalsund however, a municipality with a high population of Sámi had a decreasing population right up until the Snøhvit gas field was being built. After the constructions started the population has now been stabilized. Even though, as above stated, education relevant for the petroleum industry is scarce in Finnmark, it is still a goal that the local population contributes and benefits from the industry. For many of its inhabitants and the labour that comes from other areas of the country this means that relocation is necessary, this can even be areas where the Sámi have traditionally had their settlements. If the petroleum industry settles for a LNG onshore solution, and this is situated east in Finnmark, this can be problematic for the already small Sámi population already living there. 

The report suggests that for the Sámi part of the population that lives in the cities it is equally important as for the Sámi who rely on the primary industry, that their ways of expressing their cultural identity gets an outburst. Strong Sámi institutions for education and science can be equally important for cultural expression as the primary industry. The consequences of the petroleum industry’s expansions seem to be largely negative for the primary sector, although this is not necessarily the same for the Sámi living in the cities. 

Within the official recommendation report it is stated that the northern parts of the South-East Barents Sea flake will experience that where Arctic waters meet the warmer Atlantic water the Polar Front will manifest itself. The report also agrees that the Ice Edge and the Polar Front are the foundations for a high biological production and an important breeding area for sea birds and sea mammals, with the most important seasons being the spring and summer. Nevertheless the request of opening up the South-East Barents Sea for an all year petroleum activity comes within the same document as this biological vulnerability is stated, and without specifying further the possible effects of what happens when oil meets the Polar Front. A prerequisite for this opening at the time was that this was the furthest north Norway had ever done oil drilling, and going beyond this was not recommendable. The report was approved by the Norwegian Parliament and the official recommendation of opening it came the 19th of June 2013. Only 3 months later Norway got a new government after 8 years of a socialist-left coalition. The new government was formed by the two largest conservative parties. In Norway the formal procedure for opening up new areas for oil production is first to have an impact assessment done, while this is being produced seismic shooting can be performed to locate an eventual oil well,  and if both of these elements are in order, the Parliament gives the permission for opening the new area for oil drilling and licensing rounds are held for the oil companies to choose their areas. The former government was record holding in having opened up and given away more concession rounds than all former governments in Norwegian oil history combined (SNL). This summer on the 17th of August the new government under the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy started seismic shooting in the Svalbard zone, an area where Norway’s sovereignty is politically disputed, without having started an impact assessment. In regards of giving the Sámi population a free informed prior consent, which is their right through Article 10 in The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) on what is happening to their territories, it can be argued that the Sámi are not informed that when an impact assessment is being done, the process of opening the area for oil production have already begun, as no area that has undergone an impact assessment in Norwegian oil history has ever been left alone afterwards. By not stating this fact, information is necessarily held back. The seismic shooting around the Svalbard zone got national attention when Greenpeace Norway alerted the public news that Svalbard and The Barents Sea North was under threat of being unofficially opened, and the environmental movement in Norway alongside concerned political parties pressured the sitting government to stop the seismic shooting one month before it was scheduled to be finished.