The Copenhagen glass; half full or half empty and where is sustainability going…

1. The Copenhagen glass; half full or half empty and where is sustainability going… FDIN - January 2010 Alan KNIGHT

2. 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

3. Today’s agenda

4. 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

7. 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°

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. But also - where is the broader SD debate going?

13. 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

15. Sustainability Aspiration.. = 9 billion, low carbon, one planet versions of these…… Think piece for SDC

16. Elements of a sustainable lifestyles 1) I have the ability to manage my own wellbeing 2) I have enough to live on - and I live within my financial limits 3) I only use supply chains where everyone benefits 4) I only use low carbon energy in a prudent way 5) I am active in a vibrant community 6) I live in a high trust society in which I talk with, rather than at people 7) I have found the right balance between technology and simplicity • My leaders (political and business) have courage • We use much less stuff • Economics works with nature and is less reliant on growth – a greener form of economics (Relate above to Copenhagen narrative)

17. 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!

18. 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…)

19. 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

20. “Hotspots” – what will make a useful contribution to reducing carbon (possible list, to be edited on the day) • Rainforests • Land use (global and UK) • Operational issues (efficiency in operations / logistics) • Price on carbon • Role of fridges and freezing in supply chain • Use of nitrogen / chemicals in intense agriculture • Carbon foot-printing - embedded carbon (packaging, supply chain etc) • Customer facing carbon Label • Food loss (supply chain) and waste (consumer) • Special meat / dairy focus – “changing consumption patterns” • Broader low carbon diet • Soil integrity - ability to grow food • Soil and peat as a carbon sink • Water (national strategies and embedded) (peak water) • Adaptation to climate change • Food security (food availability) • Managing certification overload (others ??? – offsetting, packaging, skeptics pushback)

21. And now Some MORE BACKGROUND ON THESE HOT SPOT NOMINATIONS…