#BTColumn – CoP26: The last chance? (Part 3)

The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.

by Alana Malinde S.N. Lancaster and Stefan K. Newton

Directly linked to the phase out of coal, methane and other greenhouse gases, which will be done through more ambitious NDCs, is the transition to cleaner, renewable, and in the case of the Caribbean, indigenous sources of energy. For the Caribbean as well as other SIDS and developing countries, many issues are bound up in these three critical and related actions.

First, the move to renewables, while having the two-fold benefit of reducing emissions from carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil & gas, shale and tar sands, also means than many states can harness their indigenous sources of energy (e.g. solar, onshore and offshore wind, geothermal, hydropower and possibly ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC)), and for many, cease squandering upwards of 70 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on fuel imports.

However, there are some key impediments, namely the cost of technology, its transfer and capacity building required for this transition. A large part of this bill is to be borne by Annex A (i.e. developed countries), but as outlined below, the road to Annex B states (i.e. developing countries) securing climate finance has been a rocky one. Further, as is illustrated in the case of the BRICS and emerging economies such as Sri Lanka, all developing countries are not equal.

The second issue, which relates to Caribbean territories such as Trinidad & Tobago, Guyana and Suriname is that they are established (as in the case of Trinidad & Tobago) or emerging (Guyana and Suriname) oil provinces, and therefore will be reluctant to pass on this source of valuable GDP.

While Trinidad & Tobago has indicated that it wants to move to a net-zero economy, the argument posed by states who export carbonaceous fuels is that they themselves are not using but exporting such fuels, is a fallacious and flawed one, as the emissions from these exported fuels will still contribute to net emissions.

The extraction of fossil fuels by the Government of Guyana and Exxon Mobil is now the focus of the first case in the Caribbean to challenge fossil fuel production on climate and human rights grounds.

The case in front of the Guyanese courts was in October 2021 followed by a landmark Hearing on Extractive Industries, Human Rights, and Climate Change in the Caribbean by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), that examined the role of fossil fuels in exacerbating the climate crisis.

Against the backdrop of these realities, the solution which may become a priority for these states may be the same as that identified by coal exporting countries such as Columbia: carbon capture and storage technology. However, this technology is still in its nascent stages of development, especially for wide-scale use, and there are already many concerns of the impact on ecosystems such as coral reefs and biodiversity.

This leads the discussion to the nexus between climate change and its impact on ecosystems, biodiversity and fisheries. According to the United Nations, climate change is now the third highest cause of biodiversity loss, and is on track to become the principal cause by the end of this century.
Climate change has also been identified by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) as one of the seven main drivers of the spread of zoonotic diseases such as the COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Actions which drive climate change, such as burning fossil fuels and clearing forest, mangroves and wetlands lead to the release of greenhouse gases, and consequently the disruption of natural climate patterns.

This in turn means that damaged or fragmented ecosystems are less able to provide for the species they support, less able to absorb emissions, and additionally, less able to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change: peak temperatures and extreme rainfall. In the Caribbean this manifests as wildfires, saltwater incursions and the disruption in the El Niño – La Niña cycles.

The implications for the Caribbean region, which along with MesoAmerica, where the CARICOM state of Belize is found, are termed biodiversity hotspots cannot be understated. As one of the more biodiverse regions on Earth, with the highest level of endemism and hyper-endemism (species found nowhere else on Earth), climate change is driving an extinction crisis.

Examples of impacts of climate change being evidenced in the Caribbean include sea level rise (from the melting of more frozen regions such as the Poles), more frequent and intense tropical storms, acidification of the oceans and consequent loss of coral reefs and their biodiversity, wildfires, loss of coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and sea-grass beds which are important sinks of blue carbon (carbon absorbed by the marine environment), soil degradation and desertification.

Fisheries will also be dealt a double blow, because apart from overfishing, coral reefs, sea-grass beds and mangroves host the majority of the Caribbean’s commercially valuable species. According to a 2017 IUCN Report, ocean acidification, coral bleaching and other ecosystemic and biodiversity-related impacts are pushing many fish, including food sources like tunas and groupers, towards extinction.

However, for developing countries, this area is perhaps the most promising action to date arising from CoP 26. On November 2, 2021 more than 100 world leaders from countries which contain 85 per cent of the world’s forests signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forest and Land Use.

Land-clearing by humans accounts for almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, largely deriving from the destruction of the world’s forests for agricultural products such as palm oil, soy and beef. This action from major producers and consumers of deforestation-linked products will commit to protect forest ecosystems, meaning that many of the remaining carbon sinks will be conserved. Most of these forests are found largely in developing countries, including those ravaged by war such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Declaration includes £14 billion (US$19.2 billion) of public and private funds for conservation efforts.

In addition, 28 countries have committed to ensuring trade in globally important commodities such as palm oil, cocoa and soy, do not contribute to deforestation. Brazil, Russia and China which did not sign the 2014 Declaration have signed this time, giving some hope that this commitment, along with the finance for protected areas can help address the needs of peoples who deforest to make a subsistence and daily living.

China’s involvement also dovetails with their commitment at the CoP 15 of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) – the sister agreement to the UNFCCC – of US 232.5 million to a new Kunming Biodiversity Fund to promote global biodiversity conservation.

Therefore, while China’s absence at CoP 26 is a noticeable challenge to achieving net zero anytime this century (as according to the Global Carbon Project, China currently emits more than a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions), this funding will at least provide some comfort to biodiverse regions such as the Caribbean and MesoAmerica. At CoP 15, President Xi also promised to speed up development of wind and solar power in China raising hopes that China may soon release a carbon emissions reductions plan.

It is also worth noting, the prominent role China plays in geopolitics, especially since many developing countries, including Caribbean, African and Pacific SIDS receive large amounts of development funding from China, often at seemingly more concessionary terms than the World Bank and Green Climate Fund.

This will likely influence the decision-making by states including that related to the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law which is discussed below.
A final note on these climate change–biodiversity nexus is that it poses another evident challenge in synchronising the actions arising from CoP 26, with those under the ongoing CoP 15. For both issues, and especially for developing states, both of these CoPs in many respects are watershed moments.

Alana Lancaster is a lecturer in International Environmental & Energy Law at The University of the West Indies Faculty of Law. She specialises in the law relating to the blue economy, and the interaction between biodiversity law, ocean governance, fisheries and forestry. Alana also researches in the areas of energy law and holds a MSc in Natural Resource Management.
Stefan Newton is a UK Chevening Scholar. He has been a consultant to the United Nations Environment Programme and the United Nations Development Programme. Stefan has a focus on the intersection of international economic law, human rights law and climate change. He holds a Master of Laws in International Human Rights Law and a Master of Laws in International Economic Law.