Archive for the GVI News Category

For the Solution “Have a personal mission: Be the change”, Alisa Clarke, GVI Founder, shares her perspective on how change in the world can be driven from personal, individual ideas and action

A psychology of global progress: the persistent structural limitations in our hearts and minds that we can shift today for the world we want

I work in the world of international relations, where our jobs are to try to marshal the wills of governments and individuals towards the aims we’ve all agreed to as worthwhile – peace and security, justice, equality, human dignity, collaboration, accountability, solidarity and environmental sustainability.

(Yes, for each of these goals, there is someone, somewhere who will gain from their being undermined, and who will also do everything to pursue their own perceived interests.  And there are certainly differences in cultural interpretation. But, if even for themselves and their loved ones, I believe most individuals cherish the peace of mind that safety brings, demand being accorded respect and fairness as a person, and have experienced the indispensable support of community, so to most of us, these values resonate as meaningful on some level.)

It has always struck me, however, that whatever ills we are seeking to resolve outwardly, are at least partially a product of whatever ills we need to confront inwardly.  It has always seemed that the world we are shaping, we as individuals and we the global system in and around the UN, is an amplified reflection of us and vice versa. And among the things for which I credit the 2030 Agenda is the degree to which it underlines how inter-connected we all are – across sectors and siloes and geography and every kind of perceived division.  So more than ever we are revealing to each other who the other is – how human rights is embedded in development through e.g. the principle of “leaving no one behind”, how climate change impacts on economic growth, how security is a product of economic stability, the you in me, and the I in you.

So it doesn’t seem too far to go to see how the ways we think and feel – as individuals, as teams, as organizations, as governments, diplomats, as non-governmental organizations, as citizens, as the private sector – impact on the ways that every other part of the global system thinks and feels too, and thus acts.

With that as the premise, and observing trends over the last 20 years or so on the international stage, a few key persistent assumptions in our beliefs have appeared to me to be at play, and I think are worth exploring if we aim to truly transform how the global system works, its culture and DNA.

So I ask: what in my own thinking and feeling accounts for growing humanitarian crises, climate events, resource competition, rising authoritarianism, food insecurity and other ills? Four core limiting ideas would appear to be embedded in our approaches:

1. Having more material wealth will make us happier

The pursuit of financial stability is a driving force in our daily activity – our jobs, promotions, increasing consumption, competition for goods and services – and the more the better, because the more we have, the safer we will feel and the higher will be our social status… right?

Actually, as abundant research in economics, psychology and other disciplines increasingly show, notably through the UN World Happiness Report and the growing Sufficiency Economy movement, in fact material comfort is only one, albeit a foundational factor, in achieving well-being.  Beyond a certain level of income for a given societal setting, more money does not actually make us happier.  What does make us happier includes a sense of community, trust in governance and fair institutions, a healthier environment, and self-development. Importantly as well, human psychology is such that the perception of relative wealth also creates unhappiness, so inequality breeds dissatisfaction with our life circumstances that otherwise would make us happy.

So work-life balance becomes a more complex and complete approach to my happiness – living with less, living in community with my family and neighbours, and participating in civic life as a citizen. These are concrete changes I can make today, knowing that they take me towards our shared goal of well-being.

We as the global system around the UN therefore need to do a much better job at messaging that the goal is not open-ended economic growth, but equitable sustainable growth towards levels beyond which any additional benefits for happiness begin to drop off. It’s also essential to signal the value of community ties and the environment for well-being. This would serve as an incentive for the re-distribution of resources that would promote equality and further happiness.  We must be clear that what we are seeking is economies that deliver well-being not just higher incomes or GDP levels.

2. Things we cannot see and count have no value

Following from these kinds of assumptions around material comfort are the beliefs about what does have value.  The majority of well-being factors that most deeply sustain us – family and community and the environment – are those we most take for granted and least validate.  They also happen to be the traditional domain of expertise of those people who are least validated in societies generally and in the global system – women, indigenous peoples, rural and close-knit communities, often from the south.  The assumption seems to be that only if we can quantify their contribution to the tangible economy can we give them value.

But whether we put a dollar value on something or not does not make it any less vital.  Translating that value into dollar currency because that is the dominant language understood may be helpful to develop common understanding, but without first accepting its equal or more important contribution in advancing our collective well-being, we may not meaningfully move forward.

Again the SDGs have made some headway, by asking us to value unpaid domestic work and making sustainability inextricably linked with the economy. And the Paris agreement is urging us to leap forward in our thinking.  Rising to meet what they require of us would seem to first mean asking ourselves – how do I change the lens through which I see women, indigenous people, rural and agricultural workers, villagers and members of small communities, the people of the south, as actual critical contributors to my well-being, rather than objects of concern who I must somehow teach to be more like me, that is, producers of what I can see and count? What can we learn from them to achieve the balance we need for our well-being, and even planetary survival?

how do I change the lens through which I see women, indigenous people, rural and agricultural workers, villagers and members of small communities, the people of the south, as actual critical contributors to my well-being

3. Financing and investment are the best assistance

As an expansion of the common views on what and who is valuable is the persistent default approach towards assistance for those viewed as objects of concern.  Yes, material wealth is indispensable and needed for all societies to function. However, historical approaches deriving from the above assumptions have essentially entailed extracting material wealth from those whose different values and perceived inferior value themselves made them easy targets.  This has left many post-colonial societies bereft of the natural resources and governance structures that otherwise could have contributed to the goods and services required for effective functioning.

My concern is, if the above underlying assumptions remain significantly unchanged, what can be done differently now with the same persistent mindsets?  In place of colonialism we have the drive for foreign direct investment and the race to weaken regulations to encourage private sector involvement in economies.  So once again, massive amounts of wealth, instead of being channeled through taxes to citizens, are siphoned off to TNCs and other business entities.  Yes, there is much that innovative financing can do to help generate green and blue economies and social entrepreneurship.  But these should be the icing on the cake of core revenues from taxes in the countries where companies operate.  The Addis Ababa agenda provides an ideal framework for this focus, given strong investment of political capital.

As we embark on the excitement of the SDG opportunities, we can ensure that giving financial support to countries in the south does not mean taking funds out of the south in the first place.  We can today change our way of thinking and feeling so that partnership is based on a revised view towards the equal value of all partners and what they bring to the global table.

4. If everybody is equal, how can I be special?

At the same time that equality and diversity have grown as part of politically correct rhetoric in recent decades, we see the backlash of entrenched pockets that resist this new outlook.  Through ethnic and religious conflict, the rise of populism, as well as the xenophobia and unequal distribution of jobs and wages that may at least partially explain the rise in terrorism, is some experience of fear of the “other”, that threatens my long-held sense of privilege or demand for dignity.  Ideas of individualism, competition, greed and consumption further fuel these beliefs.

The struggle we have seems to be: as someone with pre-existing privilege, how can I accommodate the other without losing something that makes me special? What is my new role? For those demanding their legitimate rights for equality, how do I constructively channel my frustrations? Prevailing beliefs seem to revolve around assumptions such as “migrants will take my job, a different religion will undermine my world view, a woman doing what I have always done means that I am less of a man”.

We have asked so much of the world so quickly in terms of being able to answer these questions on their own, overturning centuries of culture and relationships, but maybe we have not listened enough to people on how they are struggling with these questions.  We need to do more to empathize with the challenges for the fragile human ego, as well as advocate strongly for more open thinking and greater compassion, as we move towards each other, developing skills such as curiosity over violence and holding hard person-to-person conversations that break through misconceptions and fears. With the proliferation of IT and communications channels, at our disposal, we can surely do much more of this, starting today…

And we need to find ways to forge new roles that preserve the best of our distinct identities, while finding our ultimate identity as part of the whole, with shared universal values – living the truth we can so easily observe in the natural world, that “the wave is the sea”.

The world is indeed a big and complex place and solutions cannot be over-simplistic if they are to be effective. But I believe that since we are the global system, we are also the global solution.  The above limiting beliefs that likely live in you and me and deeply permeate the approaches the UN and global system take must be fully confronted, as individuals, organizations, governments, civic actors, because they take us away from realizing the values we say we cherish. The shift we want to see in the world is actually within our power to make today, starting with me…

Mona Khalil : “I have been examining Global Vision’s questions about the status and stature of the UN with a measure of sadness. Yet the fact that the answers still matter enough that it is necessary to pose these questions gives me some hope and inspiration.”

The United Nations: a place for sustainable change only if we dare to challenge its ways

by Khadija T. Moalla, PhD, Senior Human Rights and Development Consultant

 “You can’t change what you are not aware of^[1]”. Is the United Nations (UN) aware of the many dysfunctionalities it suffers from? Can the UN afford not to change its Modus Operandi? With the increase in the development and political challenges the world is facing, on one hand, and the numerous cuts in funding from most donors, it becomes imperative for the UN to introduce real change, in the way it operates. Development as freedom is the core of what the UN can do and was created to do. The UN should be a platform that allows people, particularly in leadership positions, to ‘shift the middle ground’ towards new ground and new worldviews. More than ever, the current political international context calls urgently for such paradigm shift.

In order to achieve that, the UN should take its Charter to a new level. This needs to be done with the people by the people and for the people and not with the Governments, by quasi parliaments and for the lobbies. The UN Charter was initially adopted by few powerful States and then disseminated to the whole world through other States that were many times ruled by undemocratic regimes. The evolving new Charter based on the “Earth Charter” should be endorsed by real people from all Nations to voice a global consensus. This may bring back the true meaning of what the “United Nations” was created for. True participatory mechanisms involving broad sections in every nation should be developed in the process that will, hopefully, culminate in referenda that would serve as the political expression of a community consensus.

“The UN needs the mechanisms, policies and relationships reflective of principled leadership. Guarantees of effectiveness should be based upon an intrinsic sense of stewardship and a work environment that fosters creativity and initiative rather than compliance to rules and regulations.”

The UN universal core values can be summarized around: ‘Service to All People’, not governments, businesses, civil society or lobbies. This implies a commitment to radical transformation, while respecting people’s culture without compromising on Human Rights. However, respecting people’s culture does not mean condoning harmful practices or false interpretations of religious texts. On the contrary, it naturally should put a decisive wedge in the vicious circuit of rights violations based on culture and allow true access to the common human core, promoting dignity and equality. One battle worth engaging in, is the laicity imperative in order to guarantee Freedom of Religion and Consciousness, on one hand, and peace and development, on the other hand.

The UN needs the mechanisms, policies and relationships reflective of principled leadership. Guarantees of effectiveness should be based upon an intrinsic sense of stewardship and a work environment that fosters creativity and initiative rather than compliance to rules and regulations.

This goes beyond accountability and has to do with serving the people, on a responsibility and not accountability basis. However, the UN does not require programming that listens to and is genuinely responsive to real people with real needs and real aspirations. In addition, most UN agencies that went through a restructuring process, didn’t enhance their performance, rather added more bureaucratic administrative layers along with losing many competent staff. What the UN system needs most now, is to treat issues in the most holistic manner and encourage a group milieu that values responsible integrity more than bureaucratic rules and regulations.

Only secure leaders with the highest level of emotional intelligence are able to create a positive emotional climate that encourages motivation and extra effort, and they are the ones with good emotional self-awareness. This, in turn, let them make frequent use of positive leadership styles, which results in the best working climate for their teams. This is why, it is important to make sure that the most competent people, women and men are the ones that are in charge of all the developmental challenges the world has been facing for the last 70 years. Competent women don’t have the same opportunities, as men, to be in leadership positions especially as Resident Coordinator, Special Representative and Envoys[2]. When chosen to be in leadership positions, the majority did a great job. However, let’s note that some women didn’t prove to be the most competent, or made a real difference in bringing tangible results and ensuring peace and prosperity. Some unsecure ones made even sure to keep competent women away from leadership positions fearing a potential competition with them, in the future. None of them has been held accountable for such unprofessional behavior.

In this context, the increased understanding of the process of gender construction should aim primarily at dismantling the unequal relationships between women and men. Actions that aim at redressing and redefining the unequal power relationship between women and men, must be the cornerstone of any UN gender strategy. It must be implemented by both men and women who embody women rights and are totally engaged in ensuring gender equality. Any UN reform should aim at strengthening the strategic choice of hiring the right people engaged towards implementing the Sustainable Development Goal number 5: “Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”. All the other 16 goals will not be achievable if girls and women are not equal partners to boys and men. It’s time to translate strategies and campaigns into actions based on the perfect synergy between all goals.

To conclude, it might be the right time to ask the question: Does the UN have a legal and moral obligation of means or an obligation of results? The answer might inform the future of the relevance of this organization.

About the author:

With 25 years of experience in Development, including 10 years in Senior Leadership positions in the United Nations, Dr. Khadija Moalla’s repertoire includes extensive expertise in International Law & Human Rights, Gender Equality & women empowerment, Governance & rule of law, Civil Society Organizations & the SDGs. Dr. Moalla is also a recognized global expert in the Transformational Leadership Development Methodology and provided trainings and lecturer in more than 60 countries in the five continents.

As UNDP Practice Team Leader in the Arab States, Dr. Moalla coordinated initiatives to sensitize and mobilize Religious Leaders, political leadership, art & media leaders, NGOs, legislators and private sector leaders, for ten years. Previously, Dr. Moalla taught international law at the University of Law of Tunis & the Diplomatic Institute and was a practicing Lawyer for ten years.

Dr. Moalla has provided advice and shared in constructing policies of the League of Arab States and the Arab Parliament, she is also one of the Founding members of the New Middle East Gender Parity at the World Economic Forum and a Founding Member of the Global Legal Network. Dr. Moalla received the Leadership Award from the United Nations General Assembly President for her work with Religious Leaders through the establishment of the Multi-Faith Network CHAHAMA and received the Excellency Award of the 2010 South-South Global Expo for successful innovative Solutions. Dr. Moalla was chosen as one of the most influential 500 personalities of the Arab region, in 2011.

[1] Deepak Chopra.

[2] The new UNSG promised to guarantee a total gender parity by the end of his mandate: “We should reach full gender parity at the Under-Secretary General and Assistant Secretary-General levels, including Special Representatives and Special Envoys”.

All opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of Global Vision Institute.

Global Vision Institute has one important question to ask “Where is the UN now?”. In order to answer this question GVI has  conducted a survey, the results of which are being posted on our platforms including Linkedln, Facebook and Twitter. Today we cover the questions asked as well as responses from our network that suggest appropriate strategies and actions that can be taken for further progress.

1. We first ask the counterquestion “How close are we to a successful UN?” The results demonstrated the perception that the UN still needs to achieve more. 60 % responded that we have some way to go before being successful, 16 % showed that we are not successful at all, 12 % believes that we are well on the way of being successful, 12 % answered under “others”.

2. The second question sought to assess “What does an effective UN look like?” Most people answered empowered active citizens globally (84%), conflict resolution mechanisms that consistently engage concerned parties (80%),  as well as justice and accountability mechanisms accessible to everyone globally (72%). Approximately half of them agreed that community, individual well being (40%) , everything in the SDG (Sustainable Development Goals) achieved (44%), climate security (44%) and a place where everyone has a say (40%) are also to be considered.

3.The following question aimed to identify the target. To the question “Addressing what group of people is most strategic for effecting change in the UN?” 45.83% of people favored NGOs, 41.67% – UN leaders, 33.33% – youth, 29.17% – UN change agents and innovators, 29.17% – mass media curators, bloggers, artists, UN stuff , 20.83% – regional groups and diplomats, 12.5 % – private entrepreneurs and foundations.

4. We next asked “What most needs to change for the UN to be effective ?” 68.18% voted to reform the Security Council, 50 % for the internal collaboration , 40.91 % for the more actions, 31.82% voted for more funding, to remove bureaucracy, flatten the hierarchy, remove diplomatic immunity for the UN officials to prosecute corruption/criminality and limit the power of member states and make it truly more representative of citizens, .

5. On the best support that can be offered to make the UN more effective, the survey demonstrated that the most powerful support might come from clearer accountability guidance (44%) , leadership development (36%), training in partnership building (36%), training in systems thinking and collaboration (32%) and coaching for stronger alignment to UN values (32%).

6. With respect to “What can people in the international system do to make the system live up to its purpose?” most (64%) responded to be more concerned with impact than promotions, 56 % ensuring personal and organizational accountability, 44% voted to be more efficient and be better at connecting the dots between different sectors, and 36 %  for being ethically aware, more dedicated and being greater risk takers.

7. The question “What actions are most strategic for effecting transformation in the UN ?” elicited support for systematized input of ideas and feedback from citizens globally (37.5%), systematized learning and sharing across the system (12.5%), supporting innovation and risk taking across the system (12.5%), partnership with key international actors while maintaining UN principles (12.5%), being independent of powerful nations, organizational structure (16.67%) and focusing on comparative advantage (8.33%).

What do YOU think we can do to make the UN the best vehicle to realize the world’s aspirations now?

Author : Karina Nguyen

Control the Unavoidable

The neo-conservative Tea Party and new President-elect Donald Trump regard climate change as a myth. However, well-established scientific evidence proves them wrong. The consequences of the changing climate are unpredictable; millions of people will certainly be displaced. Climate action is expensive but there is no alternative.

“Climate change is happening even faster than the predictions would have told us five years ago or ten years ago.“ President Obama stated at the SXSL Discussion in the White House this October. Climate change is the major challenge of our time. More than 95 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is the result of human activity. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the globally biggest knowledge society, rang the alarm bells in its 2014 study and warned against unrestricted greenhouse-emissions. “A given amount of emissions will lead to a given amount of temperature increase that will lead to a given amount of smooth incremental sea level rise“, and the report concludes that “pushing global temperatures past certain thresholds could trigger abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes that have massively disruptive and large-scale impacts“. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which serves as reference in the negotiations taking place within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) assumes a highly-probable forecast traced to an increased amount of carbon dioxide particles in the atmosphere in its assessment from 2007: tropical storms and hurricanes will intensify, heavy rainfalls and floods are becoming an ever more frequent occurrence, rising temperatures will lead to droughts and crop failures, sea-level rise will be due to rainfalls and melting glaciers.

“Freshwater availability in Central South, East and Southeast Asia particularly in large river basins is projected to decrease due to climate change which, along with population growth and increasing demand arising from higher standards of living, could aversely affect more than a billion people by the 2050s“, the IPCC-scientists write in their 2007 report. The global population has tripled since 1950, about 3,3 billion people suffer from freshwater scarcity, one billion of them is forced to consume polluted water. Persistent droughts and further rising sea-levels will worsen the already existing problem in the near future.

Back in 2006, the 700 pages Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, authored by the London macroeconomist Nicholas Stern, and published for the British government, attracted attention beyond the academic world. His study examined the economic implications of climate change and the closely related consequences for modern societies. Preventing the excess of 550 parts per million, carbon dioxide particles in the atmosphere, costs about one percent of the world’s GDP, Stern calculated. The global economy will have to bear the ultimate costs of reducing CO2 emissions. That can be one explanation why there has not been much of political will shown in protecting vulnerable communities.

Migration patterns and sources of displacement have changed. Many experts argue that the migrant/refugee dichotomy disregards the very complex reasons of people who have to flee but are not considered as refugees according to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. The deterioration of the environment and the impacts of climate change will trigger large population movements. As the IPCC illustrated in its first report in 1990, “the gravest effects of climate change may be those on human migration“. According to figures of the International Organization of Migration (IOM), an overall of approximately 1,6 billion people have been affected by droughts over the last 30 years; hurricanes, cyclones and other types of storms made a severe impact on 718 million people during the same period. The United Nations estimate that about 350 Million people can be displaced due to the adverse effects of climate change. In international refugee law, however, destructive environmental conditions are not sufficient to claim protection. Stern declared that “the exact number who will actually be displaced or forced to migrate will depend on the level of investment, planning and resources“. Contracting parties of the 2015 Paris Agreement recognize “that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies“. However, necessary measures remain to be addressed.

The article on ‘Loss & Damage’ in the PA suggests solutions in supporting people affected by environmental disasters. In paragraph 50 signatory states of the PA call on the Executive Committee of the Warsaw Interantional Mechanism to establish a Task Force “to develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change“. Sea-level rise and groundwater salinization which have already damaged common agricultural land on islands and coastal regions prevail the central inescapable causes of action to be claimed in a long-term perspective. The most affected countries are the least responsible. The article will be characterized by the hostility of industrialised countries to pay for compensations. For comparison: measured in absolute numbers, China is the biggest polluter with 9.019,518 kilotons (kt) followed by the United States (5.305,570 kt) and India (2.074,345 kt). Bangladesh, a country expected to be hit hard by climate change impacts, emitted only 57,069 kt CO2 in 2011 according to World Bank figures.

“The goal is to avoid the uncontrollable and control the unavoidable“, said Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, in a statement to the German weekly “Der Spiegel“ ten years ago. The 2030 agenda of the international community and the Paris Agreement which are the blueprint of political policy on a world stage will require action from every single country and its citizens, from the private sector, non-profit organizations and the academia. Author Naomi Klein summarizes as she pleads for an “act on climate“ in her book ‘This Changes Everything’: “The longer we wait, the more it builds up, the more dramatically we must change to reduce the risks of catastrophic warming“.

Thilo Kuehne

Global Vision Institute

The text has been sent to the subscribers of GVI’s November newsletter. More articles from international experts will be published the coming weeks. If you wish to sign up for our newsletter, put your name and email on the right of this page.

GVI is developing a pilot accreditation programme for universities where students in the field of International Affairs will be trained to become the next generation of values-driven international leaders.

Through periodic assessments of values, supportive workshops and a UN mentoring programme, students will be able to develop a more in-depth understanding of the UN values and how to apply them in a real world context. This will set students on a value-based track allowing them to inject passion and purpose into their future career as scholars, practitioners or policy-makers and develop a range of skills valued by employers, including competencies  for collaborative leadership, enhanced innovation, accountability and a greater sensitivity to human rights.

The outcomes of the programme are that students will have a better understanding of the UN system and its values, better career opportunities in international organizations and a higher level of commitment to UN values and how to become an influencer within the international system.

GVI depends on donations from supports like you. To donate to GVI and the work conducted, please click here.

Ms. Merlyn Ooms is a member of GVI’s Board of Directors. A specialist in diplomacy and security, she has been working at The United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) in London, United Kingdom for the past three years. As a new Board Member, GVI interviews Ms. Ooms for her take on GVI’s mission in the current international system.

What about GVI’s mission makes it relevant today for the international system?

Today’s world sees increasing complexities of international relations and systems, where UN values are continuously under pressure. It is vital for these values to be upheld.This is where staff of international organisations (IO)play an instrumental role in managing and defending these principles.

From a functionalist perspective, international organisations are here to serve altruistic ends, assuming that we are a homogeneous international community. However, even if built upon the broad principles stated in the UN Charter, relative heterogeneity in terms of values continues to characterise the environment in which we operate.

In our daily jobs most of us work to strengthen human rights and improve social justice. This however won’t be realisable without leading by example and adopting values that will drive global vision and citizenship.GVI provides the necessary knowledge and training for IO staff to support the personal, organisational and social transformation needed to align policy and practice with the UN values for peace, justice, equality, human dignity, and environmental sustainability.

2) What do you love about GVI?

I love the passion and personal commitment of GVI’s members and its board of directors to be an influencer in the international system by promoting crucial values that will strengthen transparent and accountable management and leadership.

3) What do you hope to achieve in your role on Board of Directors?

In my role, I hope to be able to add new ideas for expanding GVI’s mission across the next generation of players in the international system.

We are currently working on an accreditation programme for universities where through periodic assessments of values, supportive workshops and a mentoring programme, students in the field of International Relations will be able to develop a more thorough understanding of the UN values and how to apply them in their future careers. This will set students on a value-based track allowing them to inject passion and purpose into their future career as scholars, practitioners or policy-makers.

Social equity plays an important role in the solution to environmental sustainability. This is one of the core missions for Friends of the Earth, an environmental network campaigning on the most urgent and environmental issues. Cam Walker, the Campaigns Coordinator at Friends of the Earth Australia, talks about the social equity being part of the solution…

Friends of the Earth (FoE) describe themselves as the “world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 76 national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent.” Based on this, will any members of your group be attending the Paris Climate Conference?  

There will be a huge number of people, at least several hundred. At events like this, we try to have a number of delegates from the global south and locals. We tend to have most of the delegates from the local area. As this will be held in Europe, they will mostly be from there.

Ideally, what are the changes FoE want to see at the summit? Why are these changes so important?

In tracking the debate over the last 20 years, it is clear that the issue of equity has come and gone. The Kyoto Protocol was was based on the notion of equity, yet this was lost in the 2000s as the US and its allies dominated the debate, which lead to a rise in particular voices, who were not open to there being any limits on overall carbon use. We want the concept of ‘fair shares’ at the core of any agreement in Paris. This will mean commitments for meaningful money on the table from the global north to the south and agreements to limit carbon production and hence limit warming. Within the UN, we want to see a binding treaty to control the behaviour of transnational corporations.

How will the decisions at the conference affect Australia and the wider community?

 If we look globally, Australia has been a real climate change villain for most of the past 15 years. We are one of the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitters, and we need to reduce emissions here. We must stop exporting coal. We must listen to our regional neighbours, especially those in the Pacific. We want to encourage our government to play a key role in reaching an agreement which will hold overall warming to a maximum of 2°C.

In a news report on your website, an article you posted said that that the final preparation sessions for the Paris global climate summit in Bonn, Germany last month were disappointing. It talks about a weak negotiation text favouring developed countries. Can you talk more about this please? 

 We need to have a conversation about the loss and damage mechanism. The crux of climate change is two things. 1. The need to understand there are ecological limits. This means there are limits on allowable carbon pollution, with implication for how economies can develop. This awareness is lacking in the negotiations. 2. The right to develop conversation. The global north has used a lot of the available carbon budget to develop their economies. The south must be allowed the same right. But as a global community we need to do this in a way that doesn’t burn us all off the planet.

What are the main issues you are facing with completing these objectives in Australia? 

 For international negotiations, there is a much higher target that we must commit to: to the order of 60-70% by 2030. It is ‘up to’ 30 per cent at present, which is less than half of what’s required. In Australia, we support and help implement a ‘loss and compensation’ mechanism at a global scale, which means direct financial payments and support with adaptation and mitigation in southern nations. On the domestic level, we need to transform away from coal and liquid and natural gas. This won’t happen at the climate summit but is a required step if we are to fulfill our global responsibilities.

What happens if these changes are not made?

 There will be continued incremental climate disruption. We’ve seen the changes – the shifts in cyclone activity, stronger el nino cycles, sea level rise, etc. We are heading towards an ecosystem collapse within conceivable time. Given this reality, failure is not a heartening option. Even with political will, (limiting temperature rises to) two degrees is going to be very hard.

How can the UN climate change summit help get FoE’s voice heard in Australia?

 Fossil fuel projects are being resisted across the planet by communities and towns one by one. It is up to the leaders of the nations that will gather in Paris to listen to climate science and achieve a binding agreement to limit emissions. It’s an opportunity we can’t ignore. We have to work as strategically as possible. We are working with civil society organisations, lobbying nations from the global north, and also collaborating with important voices amongst the emerging nations to help ensure their voices are heard.

One of the major steps towards climate action is providing viable, sustainable solutions. This is the core mission for Beyond Zero Emissions, a not-for-profit organisation designing and implementing a zero emissions economy for Australia. Stephen Bygrave, the CEO of beyond Zero Emissions, talks about the solutions already being implemented in Australia…

Firstly, you mentioned you spoke with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) this afternoon about the upcoming climate change conference. Did you advise them on emission issues in Australia?

 I spoke with DFAT this afternoon as they were holding a briefing for civil society and business groups for the upcoming Paris climate conference and Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE) will be going to that conference. BZE has done a range of research on climate solutions, which we will be presenting to governments, business and NGOs at the Paris conference.

There are obviously many things on the agenda at the Paris conference but, ideally, what are the changes you want to see at the summit? And why are these changes so important?

 We are pushing for a zero-emissions goal – 2 degrees and below means transitioning to zero emissions in the second half of this century. We will be sharing research and reports on zero emissions energy, buildings, transport, land use etc. which show how it is possible to make this transition. We are working with other NGOs like Zero Carbon Britain, Track Zero, the World Resources Institute and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (IDDRI), to try and get the zero emissions goal into the Paris text agreement. We are showcasing the Zero Emissions Byron project where the Byron Shire community is taking the Beyond Zero Emissions plans and implementing them on the ground. This will be Australia’s first regional area to go to zero emissions in ten years. There are a number of other cities and towns interested in zero emissions – Copenhagen and Adelaide are racing each other to be the first zero emissions city. Copenhagen, Melbourne and Vancouver are also interested. This amazing array of projects show that the transition to zero emissions is already happening.

How will the decisions the Paris conference affect Australia and the wider community?

 Even a 2 degree target means zero emissions. However the post 2020 Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) means the world is on track for 2.7 degrees warming by 2100. If we hit

2.7°C it means catastrophic climate change. Even the consequences of  2°C warming is scary. This is why we are aiming for 0 degrees warming. We have already seen the impacts from 1 degree Celsius with ice sheets and glaciers melting, floods, hurricanes, droughts, fires etc.

In the statement on your website, you have created a transition plan for Australia to be at zero emissions in ten years using commercially available technology. What kind of commercial technology do you mean?

 Our approach is to look at existing technology to implement right now – we don’t have time to wait. The window is closing to stop runaway climate change. For example, reports show that new wind and solar technology is cheaper than coal. Energy efficient buildings will have enormous savings for the Australian economy. Moving to zero emissions transport such as high speed rail and electric vehicles will have huge improvements in economic productivity. New investments are required in energy systems, buildings, agriculture, transport etc regardless of climate action, so let’s make them efficient and low emissions now.

What are the main issues you are facing with this transition in Australia?

 Political will and the guts to do this. Another issue is standing up to the vested interests, as there are many existing companies whose interest is to keep the status quo as that is where they profit. Some businesses are seeing the need to change their business model as times change, others are not – they will eventually suffer if they don’t change quickly and address the innovation challenges we currently face.”

How can the UN climate change summit help get BZE’s voice heard in Australia?

 The UN climate change summit will help to apply pressure back on Australia for more ambitious action and not just talk. At Paris there will be a realisation that we’ve been talking about climate action for the past three decades with little result. There is a need for increased pressure and increased action. There is also increased recognition that people just want to get on with climate action. We are seeing a number of local communities and state governments who are keen to implement zero emissions solutions on the ground. The UN summit will highlight these actions and show that disruption is already upon us.