COP26 Reflections: Will global ambitions be mirrored into action?
While COP26 has finished, the fight for salmon has certainly not. As the Missing Salmon Alliance continue to work to aid the plight of salmon, here lead figures from our organisations share some of their key reflections on COP26; whether it was a good COP or a bad COP, and how they see global ambitions turning to action.
Salmon are a key indicator for climate change, and what they must have to thrive – cold, clean, water – are what the planet needs to survive the climate crisis. Salmon School intended to be an ambassador for the realisation. Presented for the first time in Europe, at COP26, Salmon School aimed to connect delegates with specific initiatives around the world, educating young people, and energising leaders to take decisive action to save the salmon and prevent climate change.
We hear from Stuart Singleton-White of the Angling Trust, Sarah Bayley Slater of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, and Simon Dryden of the Atlantic Salmon Trust about what they believe was the most poignant element of Salmon School at the summit. They simultaneously convey the work their respective organisations in particular have done, are doing, and will continue to do while stressing the importance of action now that COP26 has ended.
Photo: Ben Etridge
Stuart Singleton-White, Head of Campaigns, Angling Trust
What are your key reflections surrounding COP26…put simply, has it been a good COP or a bad COP?
[Stuart Singleton-White] COP26 was neither good or bad. It has to be viewed as another stage in a long process. It took a step forward in many of the areas it was seeking to address. However, that step, while progress, was neither big enough nor bold enough for us to have confidence that the ultimate goal will be reached – keeping average global temperature below 1.5C.
What matters now is what countries do and how they accelerate the pace towards cutting carbon emissions, funding both mitigation and adaptions strategies for themselves and the developing world, and re-setting their economies for a post carbon world.
What impact does climate change have on your organisation?
[Stuart Singleton-White] We are seeing many changes when it comes to fisheries. We are seeing species moving their range. In our coastal waters we are seeing species we have traditionally fished move north, and new species coming in from the south. With increased temperatures we are seeing major impacts on our rivers and freshwater, with more and more high water temperature/low oxygen conditions effecting not only salmon but a whole range of coarse fish.
What do you feel has been the most successful aspect of Salmon School at COP26?
[Stuart Singleton-White] Salmon school was excellent at raising awareness of the impact climate change is having on salmon. It took the issue right to the heart of the COP and used the power of art, combined with science, to communicate and inspire. What matters now is how we build on this to drive action.
Post-COP, how do you visualise global ambitions turning into action? What will it take to keep temperature rise below the 1.5 degree target, and ensure cold, clean water for Salmon's survival?
[Stuart Singleton-White] We need to see countries being bolder in terms of their actions and commitment to the climate. We need to see new and ambitious NDCs from all countries by next year’s COP. And we need to see much stronger links between the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis, both internationally such as the COPs and via national domestic policies. Above all, we need to turn away from the trend of nationalism, back to a more internationalist perspective. That is going to take strong and visionary leadership.
Photo: Joseph Rossano
Sarah Bayley Slater, Communications Officer for the SAMARCH project (Salmonid Management Round the Channel), Game and Wild Conservation Trust
What are your key reflections surrounding COP26…put simply, has it been a good COP or a bad COP?
[Sarah Bayley Slater] In terms of recognising the climate crisis, raising awareness and affirming the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the increase in global average temperature, then it was a good COP.
However, the overall agreements reached at COP26 were not robust or far reaching enough. Nearly 200 countries were involved in the negotiations, which is impressive, but as a result of their own political imperatives rather than global political will, the approved agreements texts were compromised and ‘watered down’. Therefore, I might consider it a ‘poor COP’, rather than a bad COP.
What impact does climate change have on your organisation?
[Sarah Bayley Slater] As a wildlife conservation organisation, the GWCT is witness to the current impacts of climate change and the potential future impacts on the species and habitats of the UK. Climate change is having an influence on the work of our organisation, whether we are looking at nature-based solutions to fight climate change e.g. moorland vegetation management to reduce wildfire risk, or conducting research into the impact of climate change on native species e.g. the influence of warm winters and cool springs on the recruitment of Atlantic salmon.
What do you feel has been the most successful aspect of Salmon School at COP26?
[Sarah Bayley Slater] I feel that the most successful aspect of the Salmon School at COP26 was actually two fold:
1. It consolidated the wild salmon organisations internationally to work together to bring the Salmon School to COP26. It demonstrates that if they can work together on the Salmon School, then they can work on other important joint initiatives, in the future, in the best interests of the salmon not the individual organisations. (Maybe the countries negotiating at COP could follow suit lol).
2. It raised awareness of how climate change can impact wild salmon populations. By putting salmon at the heart of COP, it raised awareness amongst the delegates / representatives present, and through the media campaign it raised awareness with the wider stakeholder groups. An important example of the political light that the Salmon School was able to shine, was the formal recognition for the Salmon School by the Scottish Parliament on 09.11.21
Post-COP, how do you visualise global ambitions turning into action? What will it take to keep temperature rise below the 1.5 degree target, and ensure cold, clean water for Salmon's survival?
[Sarah Bayley Slater] To keep temperature rise below 1.5 degrees:
1. I think it is going to take continued pressure to hold the countries to the current agreements, and to press them to do better. Much of this pressure is going to come from NGOs (representing people, wildlife, and habitats) pressing governments.
2. Countries are going to have to support each other, particularly developed countries supporting developing countries e.g. providing support to countries reliant on fossil fuels in order that they can transition to green energy; providing support to countries most affected by climate change.
3. It’s going to require governments to recognise that they have to act together globally to reach the temperature targets, and to put aside governmental ambition and commercial competitiveness……not easy things to put aside….the perception of fairness has to be thrown out, ‘you burnt fossil fuels before, we are going to do it now’.
To ensure cold, clean water for Salmon’s survival:
1. I think that is an issue much closer to home. This requires putting pressure on local government and its agencies to ensure that effective regulations are in place and the enforcement is undertaken to protect and improve the aquatic environment.
2. As well as the governments and their agencies, the NGOs, landowners, businesses and public have a role to play in grass roots projects such as planting trees to provide cover, reduce water temperature and remove carbon. And to be vigilant in the countryside and around water courses and report issues that are causing pollution and habitat degradation.
I personally feel that reducing the temperature rise is a global priority, and ensuring cold clean water is a local priority, and that people (at home and at work) can do their part everyday to contribute to both, whether its switching to electric cars, getting involved with NGOs/projects or pressing local MPs/MSPs to make changes.
I also think that the Salmon School at COP26 successfully combined both science and art, and bridged the international (global) and national (local) issues, which helped to bring messages of the anthropogenic impact of climate change on a species, and the resulting local impact of that species decline on the people that have relied upon it for generations.
Photo: Ben Etridge
Simon Dryden, Policy Officer, Atlantic Salmon Trust
What are your key reflections surrounding COP26…put simply, has it been a good COP or a bad COP?
[Simon Dryden] A good COP. I think we got good exposure and some excellent images which we can take forward post COP.
What impact does climate change have on your organisation?
[Simon Dryden] Climate change represents the biggest current threat to the survival of wild salmon. It means that we have to accelerate our efforts to help mitigate all of the pressures on salmon with which we have more control and/or influence.
What do you feel has been the most successful aspect of Salmon School at COP26?
[Simon Dryden] For me, the key outcome was to place wild salmon on the climate change agenda and I believe we’ve achieved that.
Post-COP, how do you visualise global ambitions turning into action? What will it take to keep temperature rise below the 1.5 degree target, and ensure cold, clean water for Salmon's survival?
[Simon Dryden] I realise that this debate has already commenced within AST. I believe that there are two agendas which we need to exploit:
· The drive to achieve net zero and thereby restrain global temperature rise, ideally to below 1.5 degrees; and
· Efforts to halt biodiversity loss.
Personally, I argue that we should separate these two agendas and target different funders to help us tackle them.
I think COP26 will make the need for corporations to publish their route and progress in achieving a net zero position more critical for shareholder and consumer support. And my understanding is that many businesses will only be able to achieve net zero through a degree of carbon off-setting. If that off-setting also helps biodiversity, that’s a secondary and added benefit. But, for example, helping salmon through an activity which does not sequester carbon, such as by funding the mitigation or removal of a barrier, will not help corporations achieve net zero.
In the context of better protecting and recovering wild salmon, the only activities which I believe we can strongly and credibly argue support wild salmon and, crucially, will also directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and therefore can be sold as carbon off-setting, are riparian tree planting and restoring peatlands.
So I believe we exploit drives to achieve net zero by establishing large scale riparian tree planting and peatland restoration plans, ideally funded by public grants, which we then sell to corporates as Pending Issuance Units (PIUs), which will help them achieve net zero. (As ever, there are many challenges along the way to achieving this, which my sentence does not capture, but I am optimistic we could deliver).
I argue that addressing the other pressures impacting wild salmon – barriers to migration, diffuse and other pollution, predation, renewables, aquaculture and exploitation – fit under the biodiversity loss agenda, as they do not directly contribute to limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.
The Salmon School at COP26 has helped us to present that wild salmon are in crisis because they have failed to cope with the speed in which global warming has risen to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures and currently continues to rise. We need to buy wild salmon time to adapt.
We can therefore now argue more strongly that public funding (1), the principle that the ‘polluter pays’ (2), the existing salmon levy in Scotland (3) and individual private donors who are passionate about salmon (4) are the funding sources we should focus on to address the other, non-net zero pressures. In addition, however, if we delivered significant corporate carbon off-set revenues from the sale of PIUs, then these profits (5) would be ploughed into activities to address the remaining pressures too.
As an Alliance of five organisations, we will build on the existing work of our partners and maximise our impact by taking a coordinated approach and vital action in order to halt and reverse the decline of wild Atlantic salmon.
The goal of the Missing Salmon Alliance is to build an evidence-base to influence national and international decision-makers to regulate activities that adversely impact wild Atlantic salmon.
The Missing Salmon Alliance
The MSA is comprised of the following members:
Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Angling Trust with Fish Legal, The Rivers Trust and Fisheries Management Scotland.
https://www.missingsalmonalliance.org