Interview with Manuel Pulgar‐Vidal, Peru’s Environment Minister “Scientific institutions provide us with relevant information to inform our decision‐making” Manuel Pulgar‐Vidal, Peru’s Environment Minister and President of the COP 20 in Lima, talks to Sciences au Sud about the main issues for this climate conference. He also describes his picture of the main environment‐related research areas. Lastly, he emphasises the need for joined‐up thinking between science, public policy, and society as a whole. Sciences au Sud: Are we seeing a greater awareness of climate‐change issues in public opinion worldwide? Manuel Pulgar‐Vidal: The increase in awareness is genuine because the consequences of climate change can already be seen. The huge demonstration by 400,000 people in New York at the end of September reflects this and testifies to the urgency felt. Public opinion is telling decision makers to “Act, take decisions that deal with the consequences of climate change, and do it now”. SAS: The COP 20 is soon to begin in Lima. What are you expecting from it? M.P.‐V.: Peru plays three roles in relation to the COP 20. It is the host country, and as such, all organisational issues are of prime importance to us. We estimate that between 10,000 and 12,000 visitors are expected, making it the largest international gathering ever organised in Peru’s history. In addition, we have the presidency of the COP 20, which makes us responsible for creating a climate of trust, which in turn will enable a strong draft agreement to be produced in Lima in view of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) in 2015 in Paris. Lastly, Peru is one of the member states, a country with requirements and expectations which expresses its views through its negotiating bloc, the Association of Independent Latin American and Caribbean states. We are performing specific tasks for each of these three roles, which will, I believe, lead us to a successful new Convention of the Parties. At the end of this conference, we hope to secure a draft agreement which will not only represent progress in the negotiations, but will also be a political signal to make Paris 2015 a success. The second thing that we are very much hoping for is that a platform is built in Lima to increase pre‐2020 targets as regards efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The third point is to push forward the debate on climate finances and, to achieve this, we are banking on countries’ political desire to use and leverage resources from the “Green Climate Fund”. We must also fulfil our remit and approve the various national contributions, a key element in the negotiations. Lastly, we wish to see the Redd+ mechanisms implemented. SAS: What conditions are required for all countries to commit to universal binding targets? M.P.‐V.: They are built on three pillars. The first is science. The world now knows that global warming cannot exceed 2 degrees Celsius. Beyond that threshold, scientific research has highlighted that if the current trend of temperature increases continues, the consequences would be disastrous. We therefore need to reverse this trend. The second pillar is society’s expectations, which we need to meet through our decision making, without losing sight of how it is the poorest who in the first instance have to cope with the consequences of climate change. Lastly, the third pillar, political in nature, reiterates to us that we cannot fail and that we must reach agreement in Paris. These pillars presuppose the endorsement of certain principles, the most basic of which is urgency, i.e. it is not possible to delay the decision any longer. SAS: The development agenda (post‐2015) is being prepared. How does it fit with the worldwide effort against global warming? M.P.‐V.: The debate on climate must be considered in conjunction with other debates, globally as well as locally. There are several central elements, the first being discussion about the Sustainable Development Goals. Working groups previously submitted a proposal with 17 sustainable development goals, now under discussion at the United Nations General Assembly, which should culminate next year in the establishment of post‐2015 objectives. This should be connected to building a strategy as regards the green economy to which countries have already committed so as to fulfil the Rio+20 mandate. States’ efforts to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions is a last important point. These sustainable development strategies that are being prepared invite us to subscribe to a different picture of a more encouraging future with economic growth not necessarily causing increased carbon emissions. Ultimately, a new picture of the planet’s development is now emerging. SAS: The IPCC recently made its fifth report public. How does it relate to the COP 20? M.P.‐V.: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has had a fluctuating relationship with science. When the Rio Conference was held in 1992, it made use of the scientific expertise of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, which had highlighted a change in the atmosphere’s average temperature. Although there was no absolutely certainty about the man‐made origins of climate change, the world nonetheless agreed on it. Five years later, a convention and a protocol emerged. Following that, the process entered, in my view, a highly politicised phase which divorced from science. The dynamic then became more complicated and more difficult. Science has now regained its rightful place, thanks in particular to important data provided by the IPCC. SAS: What are the major areas of environmental research that you now see as decisive for Peru’s future, and why? M.P‐V: There are a great many! Some are connected to climate, but they do not only relate to temperatures. In the Amazon basin, for example, research into water flow is essential because we are seeing both drought and extreme flooding events. Scientific data on carbon stocks is also important. Everything that enables forests’ potential to capture and store carbon to be determined should be researched. Similarly, it is vital to produce data on El Niño, which is occurring more frequently, to gain a better understanding of the consequences on economic activities such as fishing, and on extreme climate events. It is also useful to study the impacts caused by El Niño on a worldwide level. Research into the melting of tropical glaciers is also essential in this region, given their importance to the availability of future water resources. Biodiversity and the degree to which it has deteriorated, especially as regards certain species that are highly sensitive to temperature increases, needs to be studied. Lastly, it seems to me to be important to expand research into certain traditional practices in our country, such as age‐old irrigation techniques. Other subjects could be mentioned, but those I mentioned above I believe are key. SAS: What is the role of research observatories in view of this? M.P‐V: They are essential tools for several reasons. Firstly, observatories provide continuous and constant information. For example, they provide regular monitoring of the climate and its impact on ecosystems, economies, communities, etc. Secondly, they have the benefit of supplying data, at both a global and regional level, that can be exchanged with other observatories. In Peru, Amazonian ecosystems observatories are crucial and we must work hand‐in‐hand with the scientific institutions that run them. Lastly, observatories are essential in political decision‐making. Peru is enjoying a very good experience with the “National Study of the El Niño Phenomenon” programme, in which IRD is involved. Researchers are continuously observing temperature changes in marine currents, atmospheric pressure, Kelvin waves and so on in areas where El Niño occurs. All these factors enable political decision‐makers to anticipate and better prepare. SAS: In what way are science and research inputs into public policy?
M.P.‐V.: Interaction between science and public policy is demonstrated for us in the very fact that our Ministry supervises four bodies that are very closely linked to research, namely the Peruvian Institute of Geophysics (IGP), the Peruvian Amazon Research Institute (IIAP), the Peruvian National Service for Meteorology and Hydrology (SENAMHI), and Protected Natural Areas. In addition, our Ministry has a research department, the role of which includes making the connection between science and politics. In my opinion, political decisions should not be made without consulting the research findings on the subject in question. This is all the more true when we have to think and act globally. If, for example, we want to exploit our forests’ potential in a context of climate change, we will be able to do so if we have reliable data available. For this connection between research and public policy to happen, there needs to be coordination between all relevant fields of knowledge. Scientists also need to ensure their research relates to those subjects that are the most significant issues for the country. SAS: How can this coordination take place? M.P.‐V.: There must firstly be willingness from politicians. At the Environment Ministry, we have, for example, formed a scientific technical committee for decision‐making in response to climate change. We are consequently willing to listen to scientific institutions providing us with relevant information to inform our own decision‐making. Unfortunately, science is not always able to simplify its language, and is often poorly understood. However, scientific research needs to be able to explain its findings in simple terms, because there is no better ally than a well‐informed citizen.