“Adapting” to a Global Pandemic

2020 had been dubbed by some as the “Super Year for Nature,” a year wherein key international meetings and milestone agreements on the environment were set to take place. These were expected to set the tone and agenda for urgent international action on areas such as climate change, biodiversity, wildlife, and oceans for the decade ahead, particularly in light of recent scientific findings.

Major international events organized for this year include the:

World Biodiversity Forum (February);
UN General Assembly (UNGA), with a Biodiversity Leaders’ Summit (September);
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress (June);
15th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (October);
26th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (November);
24th session of the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) (May); and
52nd session of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies on Scientific and Technological Advice, and on Implementation (SBSTA and SBI) (June).

Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework logo. Image: IUCN/Victoria Romero

Under the CBD, adoption of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework was expected to take place in October. The latest accounts from the CBD state that only 14% of the countries with submitted data have reported being on track to meet their targets under the Convention, so discussions and negotiations in the lead-up to the adoption of the Framework are particularly important.

Meanwhile, scientists have determined that staving off the impacts of catastrophic climate change requires a 45% decrease of net global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This, alongside appropriate climate change adaptation plans and actions, are absolutely critical, and were to be highlighted in UNFCCC discussions this year. We have reached a “point of no return” in deciding on and taking drastic climate actions at scale, particularly because the Paris Agreement takes effect in 2020 and countries are required to submit the second – supposedly more ambitious – iterations of their respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Alas, 2020 is proving to be one of the most unpredictable and frenzied years in recent history. Save the first two, the above events have been postponed in prudent consideration of the risks posed by the pandemic and bringing thousands of people together across borders. As of this writing, the UNFCCC SBs will meet in October 2020 while the CBD SBSTTA session is tentatively set for November. The IUCN Congress and the climate and biodiversity COPs have been moved to next year.

EDIT: As of June 22nd, the UNFCCC SB session (SB 52) has also been postponed to October 2021.

COVID-19 has immensely affected public health and safety and the socio-economic well-being of millions around the world, but its impacts do not stop there. Climate change and environmental concerns have taken somewhat of a backseat in both local/domestic and global/international fronts, as countries are faced with unprecedented challenges requiring urgent and massive responses. Issues around climate and the environment are far from resolved, however, and some say that changes and delays forced by the pandemic could have serious implications on our ability to stay on track in achieving global climate goals.

Climate March alongside COP 25 in Madrid, Spain. Image: Getty Images — *Climate March alongside COP 25 in Madrid, Spain*. Image: Getty Images

Where did COP 25 leave us?

The 25th Conference of the Parties (COP 25) of the UNFCCC, held in Madrid, Spain was set to take place from 2-13 December 2019. It now has the distinction of being the longest COP on record, finishing almost two full days after it was scheduled to end on a Friday. The extension of COPs is not unusual, with many in the last few years closing the following Saturday morning. But the most recent COP ended on Sunday afternoon, which may speak both to the state and quality of the negotiations, as well as the sense parties had of the issues at hand and the urgency of reaching agreements.

On December 6th, a “Climate March” joined by thousands from civil society took place in Madrid alongside the negotiations. A highlight of the event was a statement by climate activist Greta Thunberg, who also participated in several events at the COP venue. For most of last year, she served as a rallying point for millions, young and old alike, representing the youth and future generations left to deal with the consequences of industrialization and decades of unsustainable development. The surge in youth climate activism, in the lead-up to and during the COP, drew attention to the very real crisis the planet is facing and the need for countries to take the negotiations for what they really are for so many across the globe – a matter of life and death.

Lamentably, many analyses consider the COP a “failure” and refer to “collapse” in negotiations. Discussions around Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, related to new rules for carbon trading and markets, fell flat. No decisions on these or a new “Sustainable Development Mechanism” were adopted and the agenda item was again pushed to the next meeting in June – now further delayed by the pandemic. “Ambition” of countries, which feeds into global (aggregate) ambition to ensure the temperature goals in the Paris Agreement are met, also proved controversial, as parties argued about whether the Agreement required the submission of updated or “enhanced” commitments in their second NDCs, or if they were allowed to re-communicate the same targets as long as they did not backtrack.

Technical considerations aside, the fact remains that pledges under the current NDCs are far from enabling us to reach the 1.5ºC target in the Paris Agreement. The UN Environment Programme projects that we are on track for a global temperature rise of 3ºC or higher by the end of the century.[1] Emissions will need to be cut by 7.6% every year between now and 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change, making COP 25 a “point of no return”[2] in terms of serious climate ambition and commitment from countries.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed his dismay on Twitter at the end of the two weeks of talks, saying, “I am disappointed with the results of #COP25. The international community lost an important opportunity to show increased ambition on mitigation, adaptation & finance to tackle the climate crisis.” He does however end on a hopeful note: “But we must not give up, and I will not give up… I am more determined than ever to work for 2020 to be the year in which all countries commit to do what science tells us is necessary to reach carbon neutrality in 2050 and a no more than 1.5 degree temperature rise.”

But with everything that has transpired since the end of the last COP, what is the likelihood that countries will make strong(er) climate commitments this year?

Climate in the Time of COVID, COVID in the time of climate

COP 26, which was to take place in Glasgow, United Kingdom in November 2020, would have been a key moment in the UNFCCC process as it coincided with the Paris Agreement taking effect and the submission of countries’ second NDCs. It is now set for late 2021. The meetings of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Bodies, where Parties were supposed to take up significant unfinished business from COP 25, have also been moved to later this year. (EDIT: They have now been moved to October next year.)

Considering the disappointing results of COP 25, these delays in essential multilateral decision-making and action are consequential. The timeframe for taking drastic actions the world over to avoid catastrophic climate change is now and in the next few years, with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating with high confidence that “[g]lobal warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.”

While UN officials and host countries figure out how to adjust and adapt the multilateral discussions to the “new normal” brought about by the pandemic, the forced shutdowns have brought to light very interesting takes on climate change, environmental health, biodiversity, and rights, among others. Many articles and think pieces have been written in the last few months on human-induced climate change, habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, and wildlife trade being precursors to the novel coronavirus – and other viruses and infections before it, and likely more in the future – creating conditions that enabled its existence and proliferation.

Others go into how COVID-19 has (physically) impacted our external environment, pointing to the correlation between the broad cessation of human activity and the subsequent decrease in air pollution and CO2 emissions. Experts have been quick to say however that while these immediate, measurable effects are positive, “[t]he comeback of economic activity when lockdowns ease might wipe out these changes as fast as they happened.”[3] The short-term drop in emissions is not sufficient to stop or slow climate change due to the sheer amount of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; the drop is not even detectable (yet) in total CO2 concentrations.[4]

Parallel and Compounded Impacts

The relationship and interface between climate and COVID have been explored in a slew of ways, as even a cursory Google search of “climate change and coronavirus” would show. This signifies that although climate action and momentum may have been affected by the lockdowns, climate change remains high on many people’s agendas, including of countries, organizations, the private sector, academe, scientists, and communities, albeit in some instances not by choice.

For many communities already vulnerable to begin with, climate change is exacerbating the impacts of the pandemic. This has certainly been the experience in developing and disaster-prone countries like India, Bangladesh, the Pacific Islands, and the Philippines which recently experienced strong hurricanes/typhoons. Climate change will continue to cause an increase in the number and intensity of extreme and erratic weather phenomena, leading to losses of life and property, injuries, and displacement, among others. These place additional burdens on already-overloaded healthcare systems and the ability of people to maintain their livelihoods, which have already been severely hampered by the lockdowns.

Eastern Samar battered by Typhoon Ambo. Image: ABC News — *Eastern Samar battered by Typhoon Ambo.* Image: ABC News

At the same time, the pandemic is complicating the capacity of communities to survive and adapt to disasters. The possibility of infection puts people affected by climate change and disasters at even greater risk, as social distancing, proper sanitation, and hygiene become extremely difficult, say in crowded shelters and evacuation centers. Budgets for disaster response and management have been reallocated to augment COVID-related funds. These are serious considerations for the Philippines, what with the rainy season just around the corner and our health and economic responses to the pandemic remaining vague at best.

The intersection between these two global crises highlights social, environmental, and economic inequalities at multiple levels.[5] The ability of developed and developing countries to cope with these unprecedented situations varies greatly, although this does not necessarily mean that richer countries have had better success at addressing COVID than poorer nations. At the micro level, however, it is safe to say that marginalized sectors such as the poor, women, people with disabilities, the elderly, and others experience these compounded impacts more severely and will have more difficult paths to recovery.

Cramming For a Crisis

A global outbreak of such proportions as COVID-19, alongside a number of other major events and movements around the world, has led many to look upon 2020 as a “cataclysmic” year – setting the record for the number and magnitude of things that could go “wrong” on the planet. But this is not the first planetary crisis we have had to deal with at scale, with major impacts on life, health, the economy, the environment, and people’s ways of life, the long-term repercussions of which will be felt by future generations. The climate crisis has required critical attention and action at international and national levels for decades, even though it has not been met with the same sense of emergency as the pandemic has.

There are many reasons for this, which will not be discussed here, but the parallels between COVID-19 and climate change, and the myriad ways they impact one another, merit closer study. One article suggests that coronavirus is “a preview of our climate-change future,” referring to the pests and diseases an increasingly warmer planet will bring to the fore.[6] Another article delves into “what life might be like if we were to act seriously on climate change,” reflecting on how the pandemic has forced us to halt business as usual which resulted in “unplanned” emission reductions. It also mentions that fossil fuels cause “4.5 million air pollution-related deaths each year, aside from climate impacts,”[7] highlighting the fact that although it isn’t as immediately obvious, human activities resulting in climate change are still far more dangerous and fatal than the virus (thus far).

A clear view of the Sierra Madre mountain range from Metro Manila. Image: Johair Siscar Addang — *A clear view of the Sierra Madre mountain range from Metro Manila*. Image: Johair Siscar Addang

People are drawing lessons from the coronavirus and responses to it, to apply to the climate emergency, such as the following from a Forbes article: (1) Scientific facts matter and have to be taken seriously; (2) Delayed response costs lives and hurts the economy; and (3) Globally coordinated policy measures are required. None of these ideas are new in terms of understanding and responding to the climate crisis. One could in fact argue that if we had already been appropriately managing climate change, with the same or even similar sense of urgency as we are the pandemic, we would be using lessons on global crisis management from the former instead of the other way around. In any event, if dealing with the coronavirus is helping to raise the stakes – and opening new opportunities – for building a climate-safe world right now, then perhaps these are one of its more constructive outcomes.

no way to go but forward

COVID-19 has stalled important discussions on the future of the environment. Country priorities have shifted and most programs will be directed at continuing responses to the health crisis and economic recovery. There will be strong pressure from private sector on governments to make policy decisions that support quick economic responses, which may be at odds with sustainable development approaches. All of these will raise questions as to how keen parties will be to negotiate for progressive policies, making agreement on higher climate ambition even more tenuous.

Despite the challenges, international discussions have not ceased altogether – they have just moved online. To keep conversations going among countries, for example, the UNFCCC launched the June Momentum for Climate Change, a series of online events under the guidance of the SB chairs that took place between 1-10 June 2020, the original dates of the SB session. Information on such initiatives are posted on the UNFCCC website and other social media, including the Twitter accounts of the UNFCCC, its Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa, and the Momentum for Change initiative.

Aside from these formal channels and platforms, many groups and organizations are getting creative and setting up webinars, roundtable discussions, education sessions, and many more interactive ways to make sure that the global efforts to combat the climate emergency continue and speed up.

Notwithstanding uncertainties in the progress of climate negotiations, the pandemic seems to have raised awareness and a sense of urgency regarding the irrefutable links between health and the environment. Many conversations are being had about building a “better normal,“ or using steps towards recovery from the pandemic as opportunities to move away from business as usual. As COVID-19 has forced many sectors of society to cease activities, including those with huge impacts on the climate and the environment, starting up again should entail a reassessment of previous practices and integrate sustainability, environmental integrity, and human well-being moving forward.

REFERENCES

[1] UNEP, Emissions Gap Report 2019, https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2019

[2] CNN, “COP25 really is the 'point of no return' in the climate emergency. Here's why,” https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/02/world/cop25-explained-intl/index.html

[3] Bloomberg Green, “A Pandemic That Cleared Skies and Halted Cities Isn’t Slowing Global Warming,” https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-how-coronavirus-impacts-climate-change/

[4] USA Today, “Fact check: The coronavirus pandemic isn’t slowing climate change, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/05/11/fact-check-coronavirus-pandemic-isnt-slowing-climate-change/3090790001/ ”

[5] Al Jazeera, “A moment of reckoning - when coronavirus meets climate change,” https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/moment-reckoning-coronavirus-meets-climate-change-200423105300035.html

[6] Intelligencer, “The Coronavirus Is a Preview of Our Climate-Change Future,” https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/the-coronavirus-is-a-preview-of-our-climate-change-future.html

[7] Deutsche Welle, “Coronavirus and climate change: A tale of two crises,” https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-climate-change-pollution-environment-china-covid19-crisis/a-52647140

Other references:

Deutsche Welle, “COP25: Controversial carbon markets take center stage,” https://www.dw.com/en/cop25-controversial-carbon-markets-take-center-stage/a-51455559

Climate Home News, “Cop25: What was achieved and where to next?” https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/12/16/cop25-achieved-next/

Shifting Environmental Approaches in a Shifting World