Dash for gas or low carbon investment?

The UK Committee for Climate Change released a report today on electricity market reform. It specifically highlights that in the long term, low-carbon energy will cost less than gas. This will be better for consumers and in addressing the impacts of climate change. The report is available here.

In a previous post on Sustainable Seas, we highlighted research on the 'carbon bubble' - if we are to stay below the 2C warming limit, the global economy has a budget of than 565 gigatons of CO2 - but fossil fuel companies have reserves of fossil fuels of almost 3000 gigatons. These reserves lose considerable value if they stay in the ground - and potentially unleashing a financial crisis.  It highlights, as does this report, that we urgently need to make the case, and keep building the case, of the merits of a low carbon economy.

Further comment soon once I digest the contents!

A Changing of the Guard... Outcomes from the 2013 Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting

As the impact of climate change intensifies in the Arctic, and the issues move from a regional to global stage, the Arctic Council faces substantial challenges to ensure a sustainable future for the North. 'Ive been fortunate to attend the Arctic Council ministerial summit in Kiruna, Sweden representing the Advisory Committee for the Protection of the Sea (ACOPS). This meeting sees a transition from Swedish to Canadian leadership of the Council and a new set of priorities and challenges emerge for Arctic governance.

The challenges for the Arctic are environmental, social and economic and are deeply entwined. While this is not new, specific recognition of their inter-related nature is relatively recent. The warning signs are increasingly there… disappearing summer sea ice, acidification of polar seas, shifting patterns of biodiversity as species shift their ranges northwards and habitats change due to climatic stress – all driven by human induced climate change. At the same time the Arctic is ‘open for business’ and while the reality of resource extraction is still in its infancy, the seriousness of the situation and the grave consequences of an oil spill are recognised. The Arctic Council was certainly saying the right words… Senator John Kerry, the US Secretary of State railed against the lack of international and domestic action on climate change and pressed for a global agreement with China…. But can the Arctic Council and its members deliver meaningful action and influence global outcomes?

The tone of the summit today was one where the immense challenges are recognised, and there seems to be real effort in negotiating the issues and moving forward. Don’t forget that this is really quite a difficult thing where eight countries (US, Russia, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark – Greenland, Finland, Iceland) and 6 indigenous permanent members are pushing for their view of a sustainable Arctic. Not to mention the hustle from new observers all vying for their vision of the Arctic.

Today saw some noteworthy outcomes that indicate positive steps. The Ministers signed off on a legally binding agreement on oil pollution preparedness and response. This, while not perfect, will build capacity across the Arctic states to prevent spills from occurring and to coordinate in the case of (a disastrous) spill. There is some way to go to develop this capacity across the region and I’m sympathetic for calls for oil and gas development moratoriums until the regime is firmly in place. However, this is essentially happening in several areas… the US has pulled back from oil exploration off the Alaskan coast, Greenland has put in place new regulations and is limiting exploration, and Norway is exercising a very cautious approach. Russia is the wildcard and it is calling in partnerships from oil and gas companies (e.g. Shell, BP and Dong Energy) to develop the technical capability. However, exploration is risky, technically difficult and overtly expensive – major risks to any project and several (such as the Russian gas development Shtokman) have been delayed by several years.

The Arctic Council appears to be embracing its role as a policy making rather than policy shaping organisation. This was the 2^nd legally binding agreement out of the Council (the 1^st being a Search and Rescue treaty) and there are moves to develop a task force and agreement on addressing black carbon. This appears to be a sensitive subject with the Russian Foreign minister accused by Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North for delaying progress on the issue. A permanent secretariat now exists in Norway for the Arctic council and there is a clear mandate for the Arctic Council to be more aggressive on the international stage, in particular with a commitment for all Arctic states to work together with other countries for a legal agreement on climate change no later than 2015. Time will tell….

Finally… in a significant development in the history of the council, China, Japan, Korea, India, and Italy have been awarded permanent observer status. The decision on the EU, again, has been delayed to next year, but rumours suggest it will eventually succeed. Although not widely discussed, I also heard Greenpeace was not successful in its application to be an observer. The observer tent is now considerably large – over 300 people attended today – and represents States, non-government  and indigenous groups….a question is will the Council be able to cope with this influx of interests. One thing that appears certain is that the Arctic is now a global issue and spreads beyond the borders of the Arctic states.

Canada now takes over the helm. Its objective is to focus on the human dimensions of the Arctic and improve conditions for indigenous residents, open up economic opportunities, and place indigenous knowledge alongside scientific information in making assessments. The spotlight is firmly on Canada and the Arctic Council to ensure that development does not undermine the ecological or cultural values of the Arctic… summed up beautifully by the Saami Council representative:

‘Energy security is only valid when underpinned by ecological security’.

A valid and insightful comment. More from Sustainable Seas soon. 

CFP reform faces tough negotiations - will it deliver?

Caught this from the BBC Democracy Live website:
---------------------------

The EU's Fisheries Commissioner has warned EU governments that a speedy resolution is needed to resolve the deadlock over reform of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), during a meeting of the EU Fisheries Council on 22 April 2013.

There is currently a row between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament over the issues of discards, which sees edible but unwanted dead fish thrown back in the sea.

MEPs want a full discard ban on all fish stocks by 2015, but the Council has backed a phased discard ban that would not be completed until 2017.

Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki - who broadly backs the parliament's stance - warned that the member states were "running out of choices" and that "postponing the issues will not be of good to anybody".

The chair of the Fisheries Council, Ireland's Simon Coveney, said everyone agreed there needed to be new rules on the size and capacity of fishing fleets, but that "what has to be worked out is the mechanism to get us there".

He insisted ministers were working towards securing a deal by the May meeting of the Fisheries Council, and said there were already "signals on areas where we can find compromise".

The full public deliberations of fisheries ministers can be viewed here.

---------------------------------

This underlines the difficulty inherent in the EU co-decision process - finding agreement and hard negotiation between the tiers of the EU governance system: the Commission, the Parliament, and the Council of Ministers. So what do we know:

• The European Parliament called for a total ban to take effect 2015, one year later than sought by European Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki;
• This timetable was opposed by the fishing industry and some EU members France, Spain, Portugal and Malta who indicated that it was unrealistic for implementation across their industries;
• A delay (a five year implementation plan) made its way into the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers and the resolution of the Council in it's 'general approach' reflected this;
• Under the agreement, a discard ban on pelagic species, such as herring and mackerel, would start in January 2014, but wouldn't take effect in the North Sea until 2016. The Mediterranean wouldn't be covered until 2017;
• The discard ban would apply to the main demersal stocks such as cod, haddock and whiting in the North Sea and Atlantic waters beginning in 2016;
• The ban will apply to Mediterranean, Black Sea and all other EU waters beginning in 2017.
• There is now a negotiation in place over the final text between the European Parliament, European Commission and member states - a 'trialogue' who will try to agree on a final version to be voted on by the Parliament. The next critical date is the 2nd of May where the Council will finalise its position on CFP reform with the Parliament proceeding a vote for CFP reform, likely in June.
• Both the Parliament and Council agree on a discard ban and on delivering MSY - its about how it will be implemented and written into law, the timing over implementation, and flexibility for the industry. 
• MEPs voted on 17th April to adopt a ban on discarding unwanted fish of 35 species caught in the Skagerrak (between the North Sea and the Baltic). The ban, to take effect gradually between 2014 and 2016, would be enforced with a remote electronic monitoring system.

The game is not over yet....good coverage here on CFP reform watch.

We'll be keeping an eye on the progress of the negotiations and summarising the developments here on the Sustainable Seas blog.

The Carbon Bubble... Financial Crisis or Creative Destruction?

Hidden among the tragic stories from Boston a week ago was a story that should probably have been on the front page. This story really grabbed my attention and has fundamental implications for the future of the planet and the structure and direction of the global economy. In a recent and fascinating piece of research, the group Carbon Tracker released a report highlight the implications of a global carbon emissions agreement, that minimizes the chance of a 2 degrees warming and essentially keeps fossil fuel reserves in the ground (as opposed to going up the pipe). 

(click to maximise picture)

The idea of a 'carbon bubble' is the result of over valuing and investing in the exploration and exploitation of fossil fuel reserves (ie. coal, oil and gas). According to the report in 2011, the world has already used over a third of its 50-year carbon budget of 886 GtCO2. The report starkly calculates that the fossil fuel reserves owned by private industry and government equates to 2,860bn tonnes of carbon dioxide - well and truly over the safe amount of carbon that can be burned. Just 31% could be burned for an 80% chance of keeping below a 2C temperature rise. If we want to push the odds - for a 50% chance of 2C or less - just 38% could be burned. The message is here that 2/3 of fossil fuel reserves need to stay in the ground.

Up to $6tr of oil and gas assets could be left stranded over the next decade, throwing investments into disarray and potentially unleashing a new financial crisis - should international climate agreements hold firm. Fossil fuel companies are betting on the markets continuing to push for extraction and the failure of an international agreement to curb carbon pollution. We can see this by the investment figures... far from reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn in 2012 to find and exploit even more new resources, a sum equivalent to 1% of global GDP. Ironically the 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change identified that 1% of GDP would fund the transition to a clean, green, renewable economy. It seems that despite the rhetoric - we are heading in the opposite direction.

Media reports from outlets such as the Guardian and BusinessGreen highlight the warning is supported by organisations including HSBC, Citi, Standard and Poor's and the International Energy Agency recognising that a collapse in the value of oil, gas and coal assets as nations tackle global warming is a major risk to the international economy. While the markets at present are living in a fantasy world, hedging bets on a continuation of infinite fossil fuel development and hence inflating the bubble, the likely future is one that will see massive loss of value for fossil fuel assets if a global agreement is reached in 2015. Investors are starting to see this as a risky investment choice... not only in terms of a loss of value as reserves will be locked up in the ground with an excessively overcaptialised industry; but also from the perspective of using said reserves will cook the planet and cause enormous impact on human civilization and the ecosystems that we depend on.

Investors need to act now and take the risk seriously and incorporate climate change and carbon risk into their investment strategies. This potential crisis could be avoided if renewable and cleaner alternatives are ramped up economy wide and to a scale equivalent to the capitalisation of the fossil fuel industry. This requires an enormous change and about face in the behavior of the markets, of investors, of governments and most importantly the public. While the threat of a new financial crisis is ominous... it is one that could be avoided since we have prior knowledge and recognition of the true costs. The choices are stark.... address climate change and bring in a financial crisis, or take the difficult step of investing in innovation across a low carbon economy... not in 50 years, not in 20 years... but now.

Blogging from Svalbard: The Arctic in a time of change...

I'm fortunate to be spending this week at the University institute of Svalbard (UNIS - pictured) where I am teaching the undergraduate program on environmental management. It is my 5th trip to Svalbard, a magic part of the word, located remotely 1000 miles north of Norway and parallel to the northern tip of Greenland. It is an amazing place, home to the small settlement of Longyearbyen with a population of 2000 people where I am based for the week. I'm here in the busy tourist season where daily flights bring in hundreds of tourists for polar activities including dog sledging, snow mobile tours, and wildlife watching including polar bears, reindeer, and sea birds. Longyearbyen is also home to a resident international student population (including students from SAMS) at UNIS that teaches different aspects of Arctic polar science.

As I flew in late Sunday night, I saw a snapshot of the sea ice around the archipelago as it begins to fracture and retreat northwards. Miles above the ocean and in the clear Arctic air, you get perspective of the expanse of this region combined with its stunning beauty and fragility. With the recent return of 24 hour daylight the Arctic is thawing and the cycles are moving from winter to spring with the annual retreat of the sea ice  underway. I'm currently at the southern edge of the March distribution and as the sea ice moves through its peak to the summer minimum I wonder what changes this year will bring to the Arctic.

As shown by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre) Arctic Sea Ice update, the region is one of the most rapidly warming places on the planet. CO2 emissions and associated warming is shifting the region into a new and unpredictable territory characterised by huge reductions in summer sea ice extent and thickness, snow cover, and extensive melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Recent reports from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Arctic Report Card highlight the concerning trends. 2012 highlighted on ongoing downward trend in summer sea ice, and was itself a new record with the lowest seasonal minimum extent in the satellite record since 1979.

The retreat of the ice is driving a frenzy of political, economic and environmental interest not just from the Arctic States themselves but from the global community. The Arctic is well and truly a global issue, from an international action on curbing CO2 and implementing a low carbon economy, to debates over biodiversity conservation and international shipping. The global economic system inherently affects the Arctic through demands for resources and energy which can stimulate Arctic development or steer away from the inherently risky and expensive operations in ice covered areas. While the Arctic states are responsible for management of the region and ultimately decide over the nature of Arctic development, the international community, and we as citizens have an important role to play in influencing the development path. Over the coming days Ill add some substance to this picture, focusing on the links between the Arctic and the rest of the planet.

Stay tuned to Sustainable Seas.

Struan Stevenson: Fisheries Lecture at SAMS

On 21st February 2013 Struan Stevenson MEP gave a lecture at SAMS on ‘The Future of European Fisheries’. Struan is the Senior Vice President of the European Parliament Fisheries Committee and the focus of the talk was the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) reform.

Much of the lecture focused upon the themes of regionalisation, discards and multi-annual plans (MAPs), significant areas of reform under the revised CFP. As the fishing industry has been effectively micro-managed from Brussels over the past 30 years, since the introduction of the CFP, one of the key amendments relates to devolving day-to-day management back to Member States (regionalisation). It was suggested that the management cascade could go all the way down to Producer Organisation level. However, in cases of non-compliance, Brussels would be able to claw back control: a good incentive? As mentioned in a previous post, a key area for reform is the three-step phasing out of discards starting with pelagic species in 2014, moving to whitefish in 2015 and all other marketable species in 2016. The need for CCTV to ensure compliance with the new discards policy was mentioned, although this appears to be an area of some dissention between Member States. The introduction of CCTV seems to be causing particular angst to those Member States formerly behind the Iron Curtain such as Poland. Struan also discussed the need for MAPs which would make it easier for fishers to borrow from banks (by being able to provide the banks with catch allowances projected several years into the future) and which would give stability to the sector. However, there is currently an inter-institutional dispute ongoing between Parliament, Council and the Commission relating to whether Parliament should have a say in the drawing up of MAPs. This dispute is now a case pending before the European Court of Justice and it is unclear when a ruling will be delivered.

Perhaps one of the most interesting points to arise from the evening related to the reform of the Common Organisation of the Market (COM) and the need to improve the market position of EU fisheries production. Struan highlighted the importance of changing people’s perceptions of what is a desirable fish to consume, and promoting different fish species. One way in which this could happen, which Struan is pushing for, would be through the introduction of an ‘EU Ecolabel’ for fisheries highlighting the high standards which govern fish production in the EU. It is envisaged that the Marine Stewardship Council would be subcontracted to administer the EU Ecolabel application process, drawing on the MSC’s experience and expertise in the ecolabelling market. Could this be the answer?

To find out more about Struan’s work on fishing in the European Parliament see: http://www.struanstevenson.com/special-interests/fishing/

MPAs and Climate Change - Charlotte Hopkins Blog

Charlotte Hopkins is a PhD student working with us at the SAMS-JHI Partnership for Sustainable Coasts and is funded by the Scottish Government Climate Exchange Program. Charlotte has just set off on a 3 month fieldwork adeventure interviewing MPA managers in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the US about best practice when it comes to designation and management of protected areas in the context of climate change. We'll be syndicating Charlote's blog here at Sustainable Seas.... you can also check it out on:
http://bonniebuoyancy.wordpress.com/

PhD Project: Setting the Scene  

Getting the blog up and running- firstly a little background to the project:

With the Scottish Marine Protected Area (MPA) Project firmly underway it will become increasingly important to understand how marine protected areas will perform in future scenarios of climate change. How will climate change affect MPAs and are we planning for it? 

Impacts on the oceans from climate change, such as melting sea ice and the plight of polar bears, or rising sea temperatures and coral bleaching, are well publicised. However, climate change is also affecting the functioning of marine ecosystems in other ways; sea level rise, changes in weather patterns and changes in ocean currents are also altering ocean conditions. Species shifting their distribution in response to these changes may not be protected by traditional marine protected areas.

Although marine protected areas cannot guard against alterations in sea temperature for example, through reducing other stressors such as overfishing MPAs may mitigate the effects of climate change and are still an important long-term conservation tool.

 Questions about marine protected areas and climate change are only just being addressed and current planning and management regimes may not be able to cope with the pressures of climate change. Managers will need to think strategically with carefully designed socioeconomic and conservation goals. Monitoring and adaptive management will be key facets in promoting climate change resilience and ecological integrity.

As a PhD student I will be aiming to answer some of the important management and policy questions of marine protected areas in the context of climate change. MPAs have been delivering results worldwide and using the vast experience from international examples will be key to understanding how climate change considerations can be applied to the Scottish process.

 This PhD will be supported by Climate XChange (CXC) to provide timely information relating to MPAs and climate change. I am working closely with Tavis Potts at the Centre for Sustainable Coasts, a joint initiative between the James Hutton Institute (JHI) and SAMS addressing marine policy in Scotland.

EU Common Fisheries Reform gathers pace...

Today (6.2.13) marks a significant step for sustainable fisheries in the EU. At lunch time, MEPs in the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly to progress a reformed CFP with 502 votes in favour of the motion. Parliament also rejected amendments intended to weaken the discard ban.

So where does this leave the CFP process. Unfortunately this is not the 'end of the line' with still significant negotiations to come. We are now heading towards a three-way negotiation involving MEPs, EU fisheries ministers and the European commission. The next key step is for the European Council represented by he EU Fisheries Ministers, to respond to the European parliament motion. The new 'co-decision' powers for European decision making means that the package approved by the European Parliament has more clout. Is is now down to how the Council will respond to the approved measure. If the council agrees as it stands. then the new CFP is in place and the hard work begins on implementation within member states. If the council amends or disagrees with the motion, it is sent back to the parliament for a second reading. Ultimately this heads for a negotiation and compromise if there is a deadlock - something that will definitely not be in the interests of sustainable fisheries or communities.

Under the current package, the key areas for reform include:

• Restoring EU fisheries to levels of MSY by 2015 and multi-annual ecosystem based fisheries plans
• Phasing out discards over 3 years in three steps: pelagic species in 2014
  (including in the Mediterranean), most valuable demersal species (cod, hake and sole) in
  2015, and other species in 2016.
• More control over managing the CFP to regional fishing organisations
• Investment and diversification of coastal communities - potentially steering away from fisheries into other maritime employment.

Check out this great site for tracking the debate.

Exciting times. 

Reviewing our blog list

We are undergoing a review of our blog list.... and are looking for suggestions from our readers. Are there any 'must read' blogs out there we should link to??

Please post in the comments box and we'll take a look at them. 

thanks!

Sustainable Seas team.

A survey on sustainable seafood from a SAMS student

Hello there, I am Lauren Ault, a student at the University at the Highlands and Islands. For my final year project I am doing a survey on people’s views on sustainable seafood, specifically regarding ecolabels (labels that are on some seafood products to tell you they are environmentally friendly). It is a continuum on a survey that Dr. Tavis Potts completed on people of the UK. Questions in this survey generally involve gaining your knowledge on sustainable seafood; and how important and how familiar you are with ecolabels present in retailers. A key topic of the survey includes gaining your views about a proposed mandatory labelling system that would be consistent and present on all seafood products; and how you may respond to such a label. The theme is very interesting, topical and regarding very relevant issues. Results will be shown to retailers and government so your opinions will be heard. The survey will only take a few moments. If you wish to contact me my email address is: 11008201@uhi.ac.uk Thank you for your time and Merry Christmas!

Click the link to be taken directly to the survey

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XTY2NKZ