The Copenhagen glass; half full or half empty

and where is sustainability going…

FDIN - January 2010

Alan KNIGHT

Today we will…• Gather feedback from Copenhagen… what happened and why?• Thoughts from policy thinkers and makers• Hear from some organisations will be doing as a result of Copenhagen. • Use all of us to generate dip-sticks on topics using live voting buttons.• Generate thoughts as pointers for Food & Drink Federation / FDIN and

you!.

• Starting thought – Food supply chain = 20% of UK Carbon emissions • Stop Press – WWF say as a 30% of UK carbons emissions

Today’s agenda

Copenhagen Ambitions• Agree man-made climate change is a problem – legally binding agreement to

mitigate emissions• All developed and developing countries – agree to limit the rise in global

temperature to 2° (above pre-industrial levels) by 2050 by fixing CO at 450ppm• Interim targets by 2020 (with different paths for developing and developed)• Main driver of change being a price on carbon through “cap and trade”• All countries’ emissions verified by UN• Developing countries will provide financial support to developing countries for

mitigation, adaptation costs – funds coming from cap and trade proceeds• Bespoke support for rainforests – REDD ready by 2010 – 2015• Interim emergency forest package £25 billion between now and 2015 (Informal

working Group on Interim Finance / a key message from Prince of Wales)• Bespoke single global scheme for shipping and aviation

Outcome – the Copenhagen Accord

• “Accord” rather than legally binding (only 28 countries signed)

• Climate change is a problem, man-made – and something must be done• Agreed to limit the rise in global temperature to 2° but no Co2 target• Developed countries verified by UN, developing = self verification• Developed countries donate $30 billion by 2012 to developing countries

for mitigation, adaptation and forests• From 2012 to 2020 - $100 billion a year via a Green Climate Fund (panel to

be established on process)

NB - Science says that current Co2 reduction projections means a rise as high as high as 3.5°

Common reasons for outcome

• Fundamental issue of “development versus carbon” not resolved• Historical lack of engagement from USA, China, India, other developing

countries• Danish chair – lacked diplomatic / chairing skills• Too much debate on procedure of meeting – rather than big issues• Difficulty of reaching consensus with 192 world leaders• China – more tactical than people expected• China – used embedded carbon of global production as a sticking point• Fundamental lack of trust• Tuvalu / Maldives / Sudan - too much attention (Tuvalu - 12k population). • A last minute call for a 1.5° limit by small islands states – too much, too

late, a spoiler.

Half-full observations… Part 1

• Questionable difference between a political and legally binding deal – you cannot arrest Canada for failing on Kyoto!

• A global agreement on limit to 2 degrees (without Co2 concentration is significant)

• Climate change created biggest gathering of world leaders• A new global dynamic – Africa / China etc are players• Forests / REDD – now in secured in the debate plus some money!• Adaptation funds - done

Half-full observations… Part 2

• All existing initiatives are safe and most developed economies have a Co2 reduction plan in place before Copenhagen

• 17 nations = 90% of emissions - in the accord• Skeptics had a voice but little influence• Many countries we pleased with outcome - USA, China…• UN flaws usefully exposed – time for a different way

– E.g. - More reliance on G8 / G20 to drive agenda

• Enough was said to be a turning point

What now…• To be on Accord from day 1 - country submit roadmaps by January 31st

2010 – (NOW EXTENDED) • Ongoing UN lobbing for other countries to sign accord• Too early to sense next steps from NGOs / climate movement• Many want more numbers, deeper and more binding commitments• All eyes on USA Climate - Energy Bill (Ditto Australia)• National initiative’s – business as usual – UK compulsory reporting / wind

farms etc • Role of business / sector agreements – getting traction• COP 16 – Mexico = December

• For movement – a refreshingly honest period of refection / mirror gazing

But also - where is the broader SD debate going?

Broader SD debate - five big challenges

• Climate change• Living in a “three planet economy” and growing (this includes

peak oil, rainforest, food security)• Poverty trap still exists• Poverty illness is being replaced by consumption illness (more

people are obese than starving)• Economics being questioned more!

Growing recognition of system thinking and connections

14

15

Sustainability Aspiration.. = 9 billion, low carbon, one planet

versions of these……

Think piece for SDC

Elements of a sustainable lifestyles

1) I have the ability to manage my own wellbeing2) I have enough to live on - and I live within my financial limits3) I only use supply chains where everyone benefits4) I only use low carbon energy in a prudent way5) I am active in a vibrant community6) I live in a high trust society in which I talk with, rather than at people7) I have found the right balance between technology and simplicity8) My leaders (political and business) have courage 9) We use much less stuff 10) Economics works with nature and is less reliant on growth – a greener form of

economics

(Relate above to Copenhagen narrative)

What does this mean for our sector?

• What issues / points of traction will most shape our industry• From our operations• Customer behaviour – even customer diet • Our entire supply chain – to the soil and forests and oceans• Simplest tool for supply chain has been verification /

certification and labeling… even that is complex!

Certification overload • FSC• PEFC• Palm Oil• Soya• Sugar• Cotton• Rainforest Alliance• Organic • (local and / or fair trade)• Plus biofuel (RSB)

• MSC• Farmed Fish• Carbon label• (marine algae for fuel)

And many many more…(fair trade, recycling,

nutritional…)

So what’s “Hot”

• By Hot I mean– The issue is hot enough

to shape the food / drinks sector medium to long term strategy…

– Dip stick– Not a ranking, all can be

hot!– Time to add your own

over lunch

“Hotspots” – what will make a useful contribution to reducing carbon (possible list, to be edited on the day)

1. Rainforests 2. Land use (global and UK)3. Operational issues (efficiency in operations / logistics)4. Price on carbon5. Role of fridges and freezing in supply chain 6. Use of nitrogen / chemicals in intense agriculture7. Carbon foot-printing - embedded carbon (packaging, supply chain etc)8. Customer facing carbon Label9. Food loss (supply chain) and waste (consumer)10. Special meat / dairy focus – “changing consumption patterns”11. Broader low carbon diet 12. Soil integrity - ability to grow food13. Soil and peat as a carbon sink14. Water (national strategies and embedded) (peak water)15. Adaptation to climate change 16. Food security (food availability) 17. Managing certification overload

(others ??? – offsetting, packaging, skeptics pushback)

AND NOW SOME MORE BACKGROUND ON THESE HOT SPOT NOMINATIONS…