• by Umar Manzoor Shah (copenhagen & srinagar)
• Thursday, October 24, 2024
• Inter Press Service

Olhoff stressed that while ambition is essential, “What we need most is immediate action.”

Olhoff also termed the role of the Emissions Gap Report as a bridge between science and policy, advocating for financial and technical support to ensure a just transition for developing countries.

As Chief Climate Advisor and as part of the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre management, Olhoff provides climate science-policy advice and supports climate strategy development and implementation in the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre and UNEP.

Olhoff has worked with UNEP throughout her career and has more than 25 years’ experience in international science-policy advice, technical assistance and research on climate change mitigation and adaptation in the context of sustainable development.

Since 2012, Olhoff has led the annual UNEP flagship report on climate change mitigation—the Emissions Gap Report—guiding and coordinating the work of more than 70 scientists from at least 35 institutions across more than 25 countries in addition to being the chief scientific editor of the report.

On the eve of the publication of the 2024 emissions report entitled ‘No more hot air … please‘ Olhoff gave an exclusive interview to IPS.

Here are excerpts from the interview.

Inter Press Service (IPS): What do you expect from COP29? How do you think it will help on the ground?

Anne Olhoff: That’s a tricky question. The Emissions Gap Report doesn’t dive deeply into COP29 specifically, but we aim to guide discussions during COP29 and the preparation for the next Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which countries will submit before COP30. The report highlights where we stand now and what needs to happen in the short term and with the next NDCs. Hopefully, this will provide useful insights for the discussions in Baku as well.

IPS: How do you see the role of science-policy advice in climate action, especially with the rise of net-zero targets?

Olhoff: That’s an excellent question. Through the Emissions Gap Report, we aim to contribute to this effort. Our goal is to provide science-based yet timely and relevant information for international discussions. Unlike IPCC reports, which are published every six years, the Emissions Gap Report offers an annual, tailored update.

What’s reassuring is that the report has been well received. Surveys show that 75-83 percent of national delegations use it during climate negotiations or in their submissions to the UNFCCC. This suggests we are filling a gap by offering valuable information between IPCC cycles.

IPS: After leading the Emissions Gap Report for several years, what are your key takeaways, and how have its findings influenced global strategies?

Olhoff: It’s hard to pinpoint specific changes directly resulting from the report, but it has certainly shed light on critical issues—both on where we’re headed and where we need to be. Importantly, this year’s report highlights solutions across all sectors, focusing on ways to accelerate emission reductions across the economy.

IPS: From your experience with both adaptation and mitigation, which areas need immediate attention, and where do you see the biggest gaps?

Olhoff: There’s a lot of potential for synergies between adaptation, mitigation, and development goals. Agriculture and forestry offer some of the greatest opportunities, but energy systems are equally critical. Access to electricity for cooling, for instance, is essential to building climate resilience.

It’s important to note that mitigation must come first. If emissions aren’t reduced, no amount of adaptation will prevent severe impacts and losses. Reducing emissions minimizes the future burden on adaptation efforts.

IPS: How has UNEP’s approach to climate change evolved over the years, and what recent developments excite you the most?

Olhoff: This is the 15th edition of the report, which we’ve been producing since 2010. Back then, temperature projections based on existing policies were about half a degree higher than they are now. This shows that we’ve made some progress, although it’s not enough.

One exciting development is the advancement of renewable energy, especially in terms of cost reductions and deployment. However, we need to ensure these breakthroughs benefit all countries, not just a select few. There’s a strong need to improve investment flows to developing economies, especially outside China.

IPS: Coordinating with scientists from over 25 countries must be challenging. How do you maintain alignment and quality control?

Olhoff: We follow a process similar to the IPCC. We have author teams, a steering committee involving IPCC representatives and UNFCCC experts, and rigorous external reviews.

Additionally, we send draft reports to countries mentioned in the report to allow for feedback and ensure we aren’t missing important perspectives. It’s a tightly managed process to maintain high scientific standards.

IPS: What trends or innovations do you think will play a pivotal role in climate transparency and reporting in the coming decade?

Olhoff: One major development will be the biennial transparency reports, which countries will submit by the end of this year. These reports will help track progress more accurately and offer opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences.

While we have many of the technologies needed to achieve steep reductions, investing in research and development for new mitigation options will be essential moving forward. Improved transparency will also help ensure accountability.

IPS: With your experience in advisory roles, how important is interdisciplinary collaboration in shaping climate policies, particularly at the intersection of health, disaster management, and climate resilience?

Olhoff: It’s absolutely critical. Often, experts focus on isolated components—like the energy system—without considering how everything connects. Interdisciplinary approaches help us understand the complex relationships and address flaws in narrower frameworks. This has been a key focus in my work.

IPS: How do you manage the tension between political agendas and scientific evidence when advising on climate strategies?

Olhoff: We stick to scientific principles. Of course, we consider political sensitivities, but we aim to provide unbiased and credible analysis. Engaging with authors from around the world and including extensive peer reviews helps ensure we capture different perspectives.

When we encounter differences of opinion, we stay grounded in science to maintain credibility. The goal is to provide sound, defensible analysis.

IPS: Transitioning away from fossil fuels is challenging, especially for countries with fossil reserves. How can a just transition happen for developing countries without jeopardizing their economies?

Olhoff: That’s a tough question, but an important one. Renewable energy is already cost-competitive in many parts of the world. However, countries need financial and technical support to transition away from fossil fuels.

For countries with large untapped fossil fuel reserves, compensation mechanisms may be necessary to encourage them not to exploit these resources. The next round of NDCs offers an opportunity for these countries to present investment-ready plans that outline what support they need to pursue ambitious climate goals.

IPS: Do you see COP29 as a now-or-never opportunity for climate action?

Olhoff: I wouldn’t say COP29 alone is the deciding moment, but the next six years are crucial. If we continue on the current path, we will miss the chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2030.

The real focus should be on accelerating country-level actions. While increased ambition in the next NDCs is essential, it won’t mean much without immediate action. As the Emissions Gap Report emphasizes, every delay increases the risks of costly and irreversible impacts.

IPS UN Bureau Report

© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service