In the face of climate change, governments are designing urgent and decisive policy tools to mitigate the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. While ambitious environmental policies have been deployed in some countries, the challenge of achieving a balance between climate action and promoting international trade arises. A prime example is the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a transformative and first-of-its-kind carbon pricing proposal designed to address this complex interplay.

—

EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Background and Purpose

The CBAM is part of both the European Green Deal (EGD) and the Fit for 55 package. The former is a comprehensive strategy introduced by the European Commission in December 2019. Its primary objective is to make the European Union’s (EU) economy sustainable and achieve climate neutrality by 2050. The EGD encompasses several policies and measures to address climate change, protect the environment, and promote circular economy principles. The latter is a set of legislations introduced by the European Commission in July 2021. It is a central piece of the EU’s efforts to reduce net GHG emissions by at least 55% by 2030, as compared to 1990 levels. While the European Green Deal sets the long-term vision and policy framework, the Fit for 55 package provides specific proposals to ensure that the EU’s climate goals translate into concrete actions across various sectors, and the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a crucial part of it.

The CBAM officially entered into force last May after its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union, and its application will begin this October under a three-year transition phase, during which there will only be reporting obligations where EU importers of carbon-intensive goods must submit quarterly reports on their emissions to the European Commission. In 2026, after the transition period expires, tariffs will slowly be phased-in and will be fully applicable in 2034. The carbon border tax will initially apply to cement, iron, steel, aluminium, fertilisers, electricity, and hydrogen; however, it is expected that the CBAM will expand its scope to all products covered by the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS).

The CBAM’s purpose is to accelerate the decarbonisation of European industries while preventing carbon leakage, which occurs when businesses shift their production to countries with weaker climate regulations to avoid higher carbon costs. This way, European governments will ensure that the competitiveness of local producers is not undermined by the region’s stricter climate policies and that there are no carbon-cost incentives for companies to move out of the EU. 

How Will the CBAM Work?

Step 1: Carbon content assessment

In simple terms, the CBAM will levy a tax – reflecting the domestic carbon price – on specific imported products based on the amount of carbon emissions associated with their production. The process begins with calculating the embedded carbon content of the imported goods by determining the GHG emitted during their manufacturing. 

Step 2: Carbon price establishment

After determining the carbon content of the covered goods, a carbon price will be assigned to their emissions. Such price will be based on the domestic carbon price of the importing country or region and is meant to represent the cost that local producers would pay for emitting the same amount of carbon in their production processes.

Step 3: Emission of CBAM certificates

To demonstrate compliance, importers must purchase certificates equivalent to the carbon content of their imports. These certificates serve as proof that the carbon emissions associated with the imported goods have been accounted for and offset at the carbon price determined by the importing country or region. Customs authorities will verify the accuracy of emissions reporting and certificate issuance.

Step 4: Border adjustment

Upon arrival, the carbon price of the imported goods is verified, and the appropriate carbon border tax is levied based on the emissions certificates surrendered by the importer. 

While the implementation details of CBAM may vary slightly depending on the country and jurisdiction, the overall potential impacts on the environment and global trade are subject to debate. 

Here are some key points to consider.

CBAM’s Expected Impact on the Environment

• The CBAM will become a central mechanism to achieve carbon neutrality and reduce emissions 

Currently, imported goods represent almost 20% of the EU’s GHG footprint, and the emissions embedded in imports have grown in recent years. A recent study found that the direct emissions caused by CBAM goods imported into the EU stand at 83 metric tons (Mt) of CO2, and encompassing all industries considered by the EU ETS would increase the coverage of the CBAM to 179 Mt CO2. The most ambitious and comprehensive CBAM that would address all imports to the EU and all indirect emissions would cover approximately 1,558 Mt of CO2.

• The CBAM will encourage global climate action

The CBAM will require countries that want to engage commercially with the EU to implement stronger climate policies to avoid the carbon costs associated with their exports. This could lead to increased adoption of cleaner technologies and practices worldwide. It could also influence the entire supply chain of CBAM products. Exporting countries may encourage their suppliers and manufacturers to adopt more sustainable practices and reduce emissions throughout the production process to remain competitive in the EU market.

• The CBAM will raise money to combat climate change on other fronts

Estimates by S&P Global show that the CBAM will generate $80B per year by 2040. The revenues generated from the carbon border tax can be used for various purposes, such as supporting domestic businesses to decarbonise their operations, funding other solutions for climate mitigation and adaptation, or providing financial assistance to developing countries to address their environmental challenges.

CBAM’s Expected Impact on Global Trade

• The CBAM could lead to trade tensions and disputes between countries

The CBAM is a first-of-its-kind tool because it is the first to extend carbon pricing to imports; however, some are looking at it cautiously, including the United States, whose government has taken a different approach. Rather than taxing carbon like the EU, Americans are subsidising decarbonisation through tax credits to support the development of green technologies under its Inflation Reduction Act. 

When questioned about the CBAM, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry said: “It’s premature to be discussing whether or not you ought to unilaterally go off and do a CBAM… Right now, we’re pursuing multilateral efforts. We’re trying to bring people together. We don’t want to do something that pushes people away.” He also argued that it should be considered a “last resort” if all other solutions for global decarbonisation fail.

• The CBAM could cause trade distortions

If countries perceive the CBAM as a protectionist measure or an unfair trade practice, they may retaliate by imposing their own tariffs or trade barriers on goods from the EU. This situation could escalate into a trade dispute and create trade distortions between nations. One of the most impacted countries by the CBAM would be India, which already announced its intentions of filing a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and imposing its own tariffs after its trade minister, Piyush Goyal, called the CBAM “a discriminatory measure.”

• The CBAM could have an uneven impact on countries

An analysis by the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) found that the CBAM could increase the gap between developing and developed regions in the international trade arena. It estimates that “the simple average reduction in exports by developing countries across the targeted carbon-intensive sectors is between 1.4 and 2.4 percent… however, developed countries do not suffer export declines.” 

Such a reduction would represent a collective loss of US$5.9 billion in revenue for developing nations. There is also a risk that developing countries are left out because implementing the CBAM requires complex monitoring, reporting, and verification mechanisms to accurately assess the carbon footprint of exported goods. This could increase the administrative burden on their businesses and customs authorities, leading to higher compliance costs.

Conclusion

The EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism represents a pivotal step towards aligning international trade with ambitious climate goals. By imposing a carbon-related cost on certain imported goods, the CBAM aims to address carbon leakage, promote global climate action, and protect the competitiveness of domestic industries. Its potential implications are multifaceted, ranging from encouraging emission reductions in exporting countries to fostering cleaner production practices along the global supply chain. 

While CBAM holds promise in elevating climate leadership, its successful implementation will hinge on careful design, international cooperation, adherence to the principles of fairness and effectiveness, and how well it aligns with global climate goals. Striking the right balance between climate objectives and trade considerations will be essential to avoid potential trade distortions, ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy, and determine the overall impact of the CBAM on all fronts.

Featured image: Marcin Jozwiak/Unsplash

You might also like: Carbon Tax Pros and Cons: Is Carbon Pricing the Right Policy to Implement?

The post The Implications of the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism on the Environment and Global Trade appeared first on Earth.Org.

Over the last 20 years, negotiations for a “green” goods free trade agreement have taken place on an on-and-off basis without success. Removing the barriers that hamper the free flow of climate-friendly products and services would be a massive step forward in the fight against climate change, as they would make environmental innovation accessible to everyone at lower prices. This endeavour is also critical for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as Target 9.4 calls for “greater adoption of clean and environmentally sound technologies and industrial processes.”

—

The Trade of Green Goods in Numbers

In 2022, international trade was worth a record US$32 trillion, according to the latest Global Trade Update by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The report also notes that, despite “decaying economic conditions and increasing uncertainties among global markets that led to negative growth in the last half of the year,” the trade in green goods showed outstanding maturation throughout the year. Commerce in such products grew by 4%, hitting a combined record value of $1.9 trillion and adding more than $100 billion in contrast with 2021.

UNCTAD defines green goods as “environmentally friendly articles designed to use fewer resources or emit less pollution than their traditional counterparts.” Products in this category whose international trade grew the most during 2022 were electric and hybrid cars (+25%), non-plastic packaging (+20%), and wind turbines (+10%).

While some governments already impose relatively low tariffs on different environmental goods, official data compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) shows that others still levy duties as high as 35%. Another problem is that, in many countries, tariffs for non-renewables are considerably lower, removing the competitiveness of green products, especially in developing markets where lower prices attract more demand. Moreover, the liberalisation of trade must not only focus on goods, but also incorporate green services, such as carbon capture, climate monitoring, wastewater treatment, insurance for natural disasters, and others that are critical for environmental conservation. 

The Environmental Goods Agreement

The first discussions on liberalising trade in green goods began in 2001 as part of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Doha Round, where member nations agreed that it was imperative to work on “the reduction or, as appropriate, elimination of tariff and non‐​tariff barriers to environmental goods and services.” 

However, as usual for the multilateral trade system, talks stalled and were put aside for years. It was until January 2014, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, that a group of 18 countries announced their intent to put together a pluri-lateral agreement, hoping to push the matter forward. Those 18 nations – which together represent nearly 90% of global trade in environmental products – were Australia, Canada, China, Costa Rica, the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the European Union (EU), Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States (US).

As a result, the Environmental Goods Agreement (EGA) was born in July 2014. It sought to promote commerce in products that “can help achieve environmental and climate protection goals, such as generating clean and renewable energy, improving energy and resource efficiency, controlling air pollution, managing waste, treating wastewater, monitoring the quality of the environment, and combatting noise pollution.” 

Despite the effort, negotiations at the WTO tumbled again in 2016 after China and Western countries could not agree on which green goods would be covered by the free trade agreement and subject to tariff exemptions. The opening dialogues were based on an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) list of 54 environmental goods, while other 300 products were explored throughout the talks.

Last November, the WTO Director-General, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, acknowledged during the 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP27) that they “would like to see the revival of an environmental goods and services agreement.” She added that the negotiations should also expand to include environmental services.

A free trade agreement, whether on a regional or multilateral level, is considered critical macroeconomic tools for obtaining preferential admission to foreign markets, promoting economic growth, enhancing efficiency and productivity, fostering innovation, and improving consumer welfare. These benefits also apply to the Environmental Goods Agreement and are spread within three main dimensions: The social, the economic, and the environmental. 

On an environmental level, countries participating in the EGA would have extended access to foreign environmental technology that may not be available locally or at affordable prices and may be very needed to combat the effects of climate change. According to the WTO, freeing environmental goods and services from tariffs and non-tariff barriers could reduce carbon emissions by 0.6% as a result of improvements in energy efficiency. Achieving improved environmental performance is in the best interest of national governments because it can increase the flow of foreign direct investment, as businesses perceive less risk from potential extreme weather events.

On a socio-economic level, millions of households worldwide would make considerable gains. According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), eliminating tariffs on environmental goods would help American families save $845 million yearly, with lower-income households benefitting the most. Bicycles, LED bulbs, electricity, water, and solar meters are among the products that would contribute the most to the savings. Additionally, the EGA would incentivise the creation of new green industries, jobs, and entrepreneurial opportunities, as well as the transnational movement of skilled professionals in sustainability, which would further contribute to increasing the income of millions of people.

The Environmental Goods Agreement would also benefit the commercial balance sheets of many countries. While there are no official statistics on the size of the environmental industry worldwide, estimates by the WTO calculated it to be $552.1 billion in 2021 and around $690.3 billion by 2026. This expected growth would allow governments to generate more export opportunities for local green goods and services through increased production capacity. The same WTO report calculates that total exports for these products could increase by five and 14% above the baseline.

Despite the visible benefits for a wide variety of stakeholders, experts agree that negotiations for the EGA remain stalled due to three main challenges.

3 Challenges to a Free Trade Agreement on Green Goods

Challenge 1: The Lack of a Definition of Green Goods

The biggest problem during the negotiation process was the lack of a globally accepted definition of “environmental goods”, since many of these products can have a dual use. One example is that, as part of the EGA talks, China proposed that bicycles should be considered environmental goods exempt from tariffs. However, the US and the EU resisted by saying that bicycles are mainly a transportation mode. Part of this challenge is also that, out of the 99 chapters in the Harmonized System nomenclature – the standardised numerical method of classifying traded products that is used by customs authorities worldwide to identify products when assessing duties and tariffs – none refers to the classification of green goods.

Challenge 2: Trade Barriers Remain Present for Green Goods

While the EGA heavily focused on reducing tariffs, non-tariff barriers such as licensing rules, technical standards, and quotas also represent an obstacle to the trade of green goods. These so-called “trade remedies” tend to be deployed by governments under hidden political motivations. Most of the time, instead of balancing international trade, they hinder the production and movement of innovative environmental products that can help many countries in their fight against climate change.

Another concern is the overuse of “retaliatory duties,” defined as taxes that a government charges on imports to punish another country for engaging in unfair trade practices. In a famous 2012 case, the United States concluded that China violated WTO rules by subsidising local manufacturers of solar panels, who also sold them in the American market underneath their production cost, a praxis known as antidumping. In response, the US imposed 30% tariffs on Chinese solar imports. Those sanctions were also applied to Taiwan in 2014 after they found that Chinese firms moved their production to the neighbouring island to dodge the tariff. 

China is the largest producer of solar panels in the world, and such retaliatory measures may restrict the adoption of this technology as prices inflate due to the tariff.

Challenge 3: Environmental Innovation Moves Much Faster Than Trade Regulation

Another issue will be managing the speed at which new goods and services are integrated into the duty-free list – if WTO countries ever agree to finish it. In today’s dynamic world, new green technologies emerge and evolve every other day, and it would be unrealistic to expect trade regulations to keep up. WTO members learned this lesson the hard way with the 1996 Information Technology Agreement, which aimed to eliminate tariffs on hundreds of information technology goods. The list of that treaty remained unchanged for nearly 20 years until exhaustive negotiations led to the addition of new products, such as tablets and smartphones.

Conclusion

Making negotiators return to the table to revive the Environmental Goods Agreement will increase access to foreign environmental goods and services that many countries need to fight climate change and achieve their Sustainable Development Goals. For this matter, world leaders should realise that not a single nation has the resources and capacity to rely exclusively on its own production of green technology, reason for which a free trade agreement on green goods is urgently needed.

Governments cannot overlook international cooperation when dealing with environmental matters, just like they should not try to tackle economic and environmental issues separately in a globalised world. As recognised by UNCTAD, “the patterns of international trade are anticipated to become more closely tied to the transition towards a greener global economy.”

You might also like: Renewables Will Dominate World’s Electricity Demand Through 2025, IEA Report Says

The post Why the World Needs a Free Trade Agreement on Green Goods and Services appeared first on Earth.Org.

With urban centres expanding rapidly worldwide and becoming a major source of pollution, it has now become imperative to reflect on sustainable urban development and find innovative solutions to make our cities a place where people can thrive. Succeeding in this endeavour is imperative to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 11. A surge in youth activism has shown that young people are eager to participate in the design of their cities to make them more liveable; however, they still face socio-economic and institutional barriers that do not allow them to be part of the decision-making process. After discussing the importance of involving the youth in smart city planning in this article, we now take a look at how the Australian city of Brisbane is turning into a smart sustainable city and how young people are contributing to this.

—

Allowing youth to participate in sustainable urban development can lead to the adoption of greener and more effective practices. Indeed, research shows that Millennials and Generation Z are “more likely to make green decisions” than people from older generations. 

Fortunately, some cities are starting to see the value of including this demographic group in such processes. The one that has set the example on how to increase youth participation in the design of smart sustainable cities is Brisbane, Australia. Estimates from the government indicate that the city will need to accommodate an additional 386,000 residents by 2041 – or an additional 1,300 each month – meaning that the complex issues of sustainable urban development need to be tackled as soon as possible. 

In response to the projected increasing demand for public services, in 2017, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) launched the ‘Plan Your Brisbane’ initiative, a project that allows its citizens to experience the pros and cons of planning for residential growth firsthand and be a part of a community-wide conversation about the development of the inner city, focusing on four major themes: Lifestyle, green space, transport, and affordability. 

Plan Your Brisbane aimed to obtain input from all demographic groups – including youth – through various channels, such as surveys, quick polls, and citywide assemblies. Young people were particularly targeted through school competitions, intergenerational forums, youth advisory councils, and the most successful initiative of all, the ‘Plan Your Brisbane Game’. The online gaming experience allowed users to build their suburbs while making specific decisions regarding how lifestyle, transport, housing affordability, and green space should be prioritised. The challenge of the simulated-city game was to build accommodation and public services for 1,000 new residents.

This part of the Plan Your Brisbane initiative was especially successful in engaging residents in the usually difficult-to-reach 18-24 and 25-34 age population groups and has been proved to increase youth engagement and interest in real-life issues. This is because it was based on the concept of gamification – the process of adding game-like elements to problems or arduous tasks to encourage participation in the brainstorming process to find innovative solutions.

Strong participation in the game was also fuelled by a branding agency that was hired to deliver an integrated, creative, and city-wide campaign to increase awareness. It included the production of a cinema ad, display media, TV commercials, press, outdoor adshels, and a digital campaign driven by Snapchat and Instagram videos. 

Overall, both the game and the promotional campaign delivered the expected results. The initial goal of engaging with over 100,000 residents was exceeded, with a total of 100,869 people playing the game, 15,881 reaching the target of housing 1,000 residents, and 5,267 filling in the post-game surveys.

In the end, the Plan Your Brisbane Game received Australian and international praise, as it went on to win awards for its engagement, UX design, microsites, animation, and motion graphics.

A screenshot of the urban planning game ‘Plan Your Brisbane’. Image: Brisbane Development.

As for youth participation, the Plan Your Brisbane Game attracted almost 18,000 people aged 34 or younger that either played online, submitted ideas, or shared their experience on social media. Additionally, through the formation of a Youth Advisory Council, young people expressed what they value the most about Brisbane, what they cared about, their big ideas for the future, and how they would like their city to look within the next five years. 

You might also like: How Youth Climate Action Is Shaping a More Sustainable Future

Young Brisbanites expressed interest in different aspects that make up a smart sustainable city, indicating that they value and care about renewable energy, cleanliness, active spaces, connectivity, digital change, sustainability, and the environment, among other things. Their ideas for the future include efficient transport and better liveability, interconnectivity, affordable housing, and turning landfills into art. As for the city they want in the future, they said that they would like it to be fun, affordable, diverse, safe, green, clean, and connected.

At the end of the project, Plan Your Brisbane generated over 15,000 ideas from more than 100,000 people representing every Brisbane suburb on how to make their city more livable. 

After analysing the results, in mid-2018 the BCC launched ‘Brisbane’s Future Blueprint’, a document providing a plan with eight principles and 40 clear actions to guide decisions and make sure Brisbane can thrive while simoultaneoulsy achieving its goal of receiving hundreds of thousands of new residents over the next 20 years.

The Future of Smart Sustainable Cities

Over the coming years, there will be many opportunities to continue shifting urban centers towards a greener and more digital setup. Succeeding in this endeavour will largely depend on how we involve the youth so they can contribute to city-building through their skills and sustainability-oriented mentality. 

For young people to make meaningful contributions, they will need to become more educated and informed, and they will have to be actively involved in decision-making processes. To get there, they will need support from a variety of stakeholders. For instance, governments around the world should be encouraged to take inspiration from initiatives like Brisbane’s to give a voice to young people and incorporate their views into sustainable urban planning and development processes.

It is time to realise the untapped potential of our metropolises. Whether we manage to increase youth participation and make the most out of their skills will be a breakpoint in the development of smart sustainable cities of the future. 

As Raf Tuts, Director of UN-Habitat’s Global Solutions Division, puts it: “The battle to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals will be won or lost in cities, and it will be young men and women who will be leading the charge through their innovation and drive.”

This article is Part 2 of a two-part series on Smart Sustainable Cities. Check out Part 1: Why Youth Should Be Involved in the Planning of Smart Sustainable Cities

The post ‘Plan Your Brisbane’: How to Get the Youth Involved in Sustainable Urban Development appeared first on Earth.Org.

One of the most critical tasks to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is making cities hospitable, productive, and healthful places to live, as called for by SDG 11. As the world population crosses the 8 billion mark, it is imperative to unlock innovative solutions to spur social and economic development in urban centres through the development of smart sustainable cities, and young people will have a key role to play in that endeavour. Two demographic patterns stand out in today’s global landscape: rapid urbanisation and large youth populations.

__

The Problem With Modern Cities

Many cities today have become big pollution centres, with more than 4 million yearly deaths related to air contamination and another million from water and sanitation-related diseases, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Urban areas worldwide have also become vulnerable to climate-related disasters, with heatwaves and floods on the rise. While trying to tackle these problems, governments must also plan resources to attend to increasing demand for public services as the number of people moving out of rural areas and into the cities is exponentially growing.

Over the last century, most countries have experienced a massive wave of urbanisation, with the number of people living in cities growing from 751 million in 1950 to 4.5 billion in 2022, according to UN Habitat’s latest World Cities Report. This trend is expected to continue as the same publication shows that 55% of the world’s populace already live in urban areas and predicts the number will grow to 68% by 2050. 

What’s more, the United Nations estimates that there will be 43 megacities in the world by the end of the current decade. Megacities are metropolitan areas with a total population of more than 10 million people. Most of them are  located in  developing countries, which already struggle to provide basic services that contribute to the well-being of their populations while respecting the planetary boundaries and trying to achieve sustainable development. Due to this sharp population increase, many urban centers have an enormous challenge in front of them and must prepare now more than ever to undertake projects related to efficient public transportation, green architecture, renewable energy sources, waste management, and water conservation.

Shift of urban and rural populations over the next 30 years according to UN DESA. Graph: World Cities Report 2022.

What Are Smart Sustainable Cities and Why Do We Need Them?

A smart sustainable city is a relatively new term that combines two popular development-oriented themes: Sustainability and connectivity. 

Smart cities are those focused on harnessing innovative Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to improve a city’s operational efficiency, facilitate the sharing of information with the public, and providing a better quality of government administration and citizen welfare. On the other hand, sustainable cities rely on and integrate more efficient air, water, waste management, and other low emissions practices. 

As technology in both disciplines advances, the line between smart and sustainable cities begins to blur. When merging both concepts, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) define a smart sustainable city as: “An innovative city that uses ICTs and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects.” 

Apart from an official definition, UNECE and ITU also developed a framework based on 91 Key Performance Indicators to analyse the extent to which a place can be considered a smart sustainable city.

The relevance of smart technologies to achieve sustainability is underlined by Jeffrey Sachs and colleagues in their paper “Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.” The fifth transformation particularly calls for building sustainable cities and communities through smart infrastructure, zoning patterns, information and communication networks, resilience to environmental hazards, and intercity transport and architecture. Organising this transformation is complex due to the large number of stakeholders involved. 

Additionally, cities also require competent and adequately resourced local authorities that can pursue integrated strategies and ensure participatory design. However, the reward is certainly worth it as we will achieve more livable, healthful, efficient, resilient, and safer greener cities that will contribute to improving the physical and mental well-being of people.

What Role Do Young People Play in Developing Smart Sustainable Cities?

In most countries, urban planning and development have traditionally been monopolised by local authorities and governmental agencies. They have taken over the strategic, decision-making, and technical implementation roles, but most do not possess the skills needed to carry out an entire smart city project. For this reason, it is necessary to stop working in silos and involve all groups of interest to find new solutions to the problems of modern cities. An underrepresented group in this process are young people, who are quickly increasing in number and actively demanding new spaces and services to realise their potential.

UN Habitat reports that 60% of urban populations will be under the age of 18 by 2030, a group of people also known as the “youth bulge”. Experts in demographics suggest that a high youth bulge presents both challenges and opportunities for cities, especially in developing countries. If accompanied by favourable conditions, it frees up investment resources, creates employment opportunities, and boosts productivity. In their absence, youth bulges pose several demographic and socio-economic challenges. Overall, the large share of the youth population in cities is expected to persist, so cities should plan for this demographic shift in order to turn threats into chances. 

The newer generations have a set of characteristics that will influence and ultimately reinvent the economic, social, and environmental models of cities. A 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that Generation Z and Millennials – those born after 1980 – are “more likely to make green decisions” than Generation X and Baby Boomers – those born between 1946 and 1979. The study also show that 83% of younger people are knowledgeable about responsible waste management, 74% are interested in reducing their energy usage, and 71% are willing to make sustainable shopping choices. They are also less fond of the idea of owning a car and more likely to use public transport or carpooling services. 

In terms of the digital properties of smart cities, ITU reported that youth are now the main users of the internet in all world regions. While it may be easy to suppose that they are only using it for connecting to social media, Eurostat shows that they are also predominantly using it for education, job searching, coding, and connecting to their governments, pursuits that fit within the scope of smart cities.  

These statistics are just a few examples of how youth are starting to influence and reshape the urban environment through their daily-life activities, pushing our societies to become more sustainable and digital.

You might also like: 4 Commonly-Used Smart City Technologies

How Can We Enhance Youth Participation in the Development of Smart Sustainable Cities?

A vital part of empowering youth is providing them with proper education to create a generation of environmentally conscious citizens who understand the importance of sustainable development and the impact of their actions on the environment and their communities. This way, they can also learn about the importance of civic engagement and advocacy in making cities a better place to live. 

Unfortunately, we are still far from this goal. A report by Education International, an organisation that brings together teachers and other education employees worldwide, found that most countries are abandoning commitments to provide Climate Change Education (CCE). Its research says that out of 95 countries that submitted Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement’s goals, only 24% mentioned the education of youth, while none are working on compulsory CCE under their national climate strategy. 

The study also suggests that developed nations are not doing enough: “None of the top 20 carbon emitting countries nor the top 20 wealthiest countries that have submitted their updated NDC makes a reference to CCE. Instead, countries with the lowest carbon emissions are more likely to discuss CCE in the context of their national climate strategy.” 

Not only is there a shortage of CCE, but Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) skills also need to be addressed to promote the development of youth-led solutions that will lead to smarter and more sustainable cities.

Increasing transparency and engagement should also be elements to turn to as the existing power disbalance between decision-makers and youth is an obstacle. Young people today demonstrate to be more informed and interested in civic participation than previous generations, but they are typically excluded from resolutive processes, even though they are driving some of the largest activism movements ever seen. As a result, younger people have lower trust in their governments than older ones, with an almost ten percentage point trust gap in surveyed Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. 

To tackle this problem, governments must focus on increasing the access of youth to information, providing them with more opportunities for hard and soft skills development, fostering collaboration between private, public, and youth organisations, and providing incentives to pursue entrepreneurial ventures, particularly in the form of funding.

This article is Part 1 of a two-part series on Smart Sustainable Cities. Check out Part 2: ‘Plan Your Brisbane’: How to Get the Youth Involved in Sustainable Urban Development

The post Why Youth Should Be Involved in the Planning of Smart Sustainable Cities appeared first on Earth.Org.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) – a voluntary agreement between nations that regulates the international trade of certain species of plants and animals – announced on March 27, 2023, that Mexico will be sanctioned after concluding that its plan to protect the vaquita marina is “not adequate”. The notification issued to its other 183 member countries communicated the recommendation to “suspend all commercial trade in specimens of CITES-listed species with Mexico.” 

—

What Happened?

The Convention regulates the trade of 40,920 species – 6,610 animals and 34,310 plants – of which over 3,000 are either imported or exported by Mexico. This measure is considered the toughest one that can be imposed by CITES and is presently only applied to six other countries: Afghanistan, Djibouti, the small island nation of São Tomé and Príncipe, Libya, Somalia, and Liberia.

After the CITES’ 75th meeting of the Standing Committee and the 19th meeting of the Conference of the Parties, both held in Panama City in November 2022, Mexico was urged through Decision 18.293 (revised CoP19 version available here) to “take immediate and effective actions in response to the threats to totoaba and vaquita posed by illegal trade” through a series of specific actions detailed in the document. 

As a result, on February 9, Mexico drafted and submitted to the Convention’s Secretariat a compliance action plan focusing on implementing the provisions of Decision 18.293. The Secretariat provided detailed inputs to the Mexican government on the abstract on February 16th, indicating the areas that had to be addressed for the plan to be approved. Mexico subsequently submitted its finalised proposal on February 27, within the agreed deadline; nonetheless, CITES proceeded with the sanction against the country because its project did not consider “key elements, such as clear timeframes for implementation and achievement of the different steps in the plan, with corresponding milestones.”

The same day that the trade ban recommendation was announced, Marcelo Ebrard, the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Affairs, sent a delegation to Geneva to negotiate the sanction and discuss improvements to the plan for protecting the vaquita marina. However, on March 25, Mexico’s Secretariat of the Environment and Natural Resources issued a press release, saying that “the Mexican government believes the country is being treated unfairly in that its efforts – publicly recognised by CITES – are not being taken into account.” 

The efforts that Mexico referred to include the ban on gillnet fishing in the Gulf of California in 2017, the setup of radars and security to monitor the Zero Tolerance Area – an area of about 370 square kilometres where the vaquita’s refuge is located, and the placement of concrete blocks with steel-rod hooks to retrieve any gillnets left. 

The Mexican Navy also partnered last year with Sea Shepherd, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), to implement Operation Milagro, a project to protect the vaquita marina by sharing information on illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and reduce the affluence of fishing boats on the Californian Gulf. Despite these actions, NGOs and international organisations report that IUU fishing continues to thrive on Mexican coasts. CITES announced that the trade ban will remain in force until the Mexican government presents a new protection plan that is approved by the Convention, which could happen until November 2023, when the CITES’ Standing Committee and Parties meet again in Geneva to deliberate.

You might also like: 19 Overfishing Facts That Will Blow Your Mind

The Vaquita Marina – The World’s Most Endangered Cetacean

The vaquita marina (Spanish for “little marine cow”) is a marine mammal found exclusively in Mexico’s Gulf of California, located between the peninsula of Baja California and the coasts of Sonora and Sinaloa. What makes this specimen unique from all others is its size. At a maximum length of 1.5 metres (4.9 feet), the vaquita is the smallest cetacean and shares many characteristics with whales, dolphins, and other porpoise species. 

Despite its relatively recent discovery in the late 1950s, the IUU fishing industry has pushed the vaquita marina near extinction. The population decline of the species has been dramatic, turning it into the world’s most endangered marine mammal. 

In 1997, there were almost 600 specimens in the Gulf of California but a 2017 census reported that the number had gone down to 30. That is a 95% decrease in the population in only 20 years. As of today, scientists from the International Union for Conservation of Nature inform that there are only 18 mature individuals, with eight adults and perhaps two calves left out in nature. The same organisation has classified the vaquita marina as “critically endangered” since 1996, after becoming “endangered” in 1990 and entering their Red List as “vulnerable” in 1986. Should the vaquita population continue to collapse, the following steps would be to declare it “extinct in the wild” and “extinct.” 

Several factors have played a key role in the vaquita’s upheaval. One of them is the fact that it is a non-migratory mammal that has the most limited geographical range of any cetacean species, inhabiting a mere 4000 square kilometres. Additionally, the vaquita marina never goes deeper than 50 meters into the sea, making it relatively easier for illegal fishers to access the specimen. Another factor is the enormous Chinese demand for totoaba  – a fish also found in the Gulf of California that is caught with gillnets, causing the vaquita to be trapped as bycatch – as its meat is considered an aphrodisiac delicacy that can be worth thousands of dollars per kilogram. The totoaba fish is currently considered a vulnerable species and its status could change to “endangered” if this trend continues.

More about the Vaquita here: 6 Interesting Facts About the Vaquita, The World’s Most Endangered Cetacean

Will the Trade Ban on Mexico Save the Vaquita Marina From Extinction?

For decades, the imposition of wildlife trade restrictions by CITES has been a controversial topic that often initiates discussions among conservation supporters and scientists. While there is no disagreement on the fact that wildlife trade is a major driver of biodiversity loss worldwide, they cannot agree on whether trade bans generate the same effect in the long run. While some find it a necessary instrument for environmental protection, others consider it a harmful and ineffective measure that increases the exploitation of endangered species and further exacerbates population decline. 

The rationale for those against trade bans can be best described by Weber et al., who argue that “by removing legal trade, incentives to preserve wildlife may diminish; this can push trade “underground’ where it is unmonitored, uncontrolled, and ultimately the preservation of a species can be ineffective and lost.” 

Many critics claim that countries do not analyse whether CITES trade bans will work in the way that they are intended or make the problem worse by enabling illegal trade. An example is the ban imposed in the 1970s on the black rhinoceros. Instead of protecting the animal and expanding its wild population, it caused a tenfold increase in the price of rhino horn over the next two years, promoting poaching and generating extinction in some areas. 

The problem with the trade veto imposed on Mexico is that CITES is not using it as an instrument to directly tackle the decline of the vaquita marina population because the ban is not on the commercialisation of the vaquita itself or derivative products – the way the CITES agreement is meant to work through its three appendixes; instead, the Convention is blocking the trade of all other species as a pressure mechanism to get the Mexican government to work on a better preservation plan for the vaquita as soon as possible. 

As the black rhinoceros case shows, this measure could backfire and further endanger other Mexican species subject to the ban if it stays on for a long time. The perception of the rarity of some of these plants and animals may rise along with their prices, creating a black market for their supply and demand. Moreover, as R.B. Martin noted in his reflection on the Convention, “CITES will be most effective when it works in concert with national states and not against them; that is, when it aids the Parties’ own law enforcement efforts to control illegal or excessive trade … This presupposes a high degree of mutual respect for the sovereign rights of nations and tolerance of a wide variation in approaches to conservation issues.”

While it is too early to analyse the effectiveness of the trade ban on Mexico, it seems to already have the effect that CITES was looking for, as the Mexican government promptly expressed its willingness to cooperate and improve its preservation plan to save the vaquita marina and lift the sanctions. The cost that Mexico will have to pay over the months that the veto remains in force is still unknown but expected to cost the country millions of dollars. In the meantime, the Mexican government can anticipate massive pressure from NGOs, companies, and investors from different industries that will be affected by this decision. 

Conclusion

Despite what may seem like a small victory to get Mexican authorities more engaged in finding a solution, it is still necessary to be on the outlook for any undesired side effects that the trade ban may cause. 

Mexico is a country known for its rich biodiversity, and many people in the formal and informal sectors depend on commercialising plants and animals in different forms. Relying too heavily on bans and other trade restrictions can harm entire communities if evidence does not clearly indicate that it is for the wellbeing of a particular species. This situation will likely increase the costs and reduce the markets for many Mexican fishers, butchers, farmers, horticultors, and herbalists, jeopardising their livelihoods and causing some to turn to illegal trade or smuggling of endangered species. Instead, sustainable trade should be promoted as it can help to meet people’s needs and safeguard the environment.

As for the vaquita marina, let’s not forget that it is an essential part of the natural food chain within its habitat, existing as both a predator and prey for sharks and killer whales. They also serve as a vital population control mechanism for several fish species, crustaceans, and cephalopods. Its preservation plans should focus on identifying and attacking the root causes of the problem instead of only dealing with the outer layers, such as simply removing gillnets. It is critical for the international community to rally and support NGOs, the Mexican government, and international organisations in their mission to save the vaquita marina. Even though there are very few vaquitas left, we still have time to take action, as scientists believe that the species can be saved through inbreeding, but IUU fishing must stop now for that to happen. 

Featured image courtesy of UN Environmental Programme

You might also like: 7 Solutions to Overfishing We Need Right Now

The post Mexico Excluded From Flora and Fauna Trade Due to ‘Inadequate’ Protection of the Vaquita Marina appeared first on Earth.Org.