Okay. So I start recording now. Um, so.
Well, I guess. Good afternoon. My name is Giovanni Palafox, and we're now recording for the Future of Cooking podcast at the University of Oxford.
First of all, I'm going to introduce myself and won't be brief paragraphs.
So I'm a research associate at the Future of Cooling, where I work in work package number four,
which is on sustainable, sustainable cooling production networks.
We are researching the food's lifecycle recruiting appliances to better understand how these technologies that we use for cooling can be designed,
produced, used and processed at the end of life for maximum sustainability.
And this approach is basically developed under the circular economy paradigm.
And so such an economy would reduce waste from cooling and improve its access to everybody and contribute to carbon neutrality.
And today we have a very special guest, and her name is Tina Brindley,
and she's an international professional with over 20 years of experience in policy
analysis and implementation and sustainable development related issues and management.
During her career, she has served us as the the Minister for Environment,
Energy and Climate Change for Greece and the Greece Ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OCD.
And she's been also an Executive Secretary of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, the UN, the Montreal Protocol.
And finally right now, Tina is currently the Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification.
So in all of her roles, Tina's diplomatic skills, solid scientific knowledge and strategic thinking have been a catalyst for innovation and results.
In particular,
she has headed the Oceans Secretariat during the long and sensitive negotiations that created the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol,
which is hailed as one of the most important climate agreements in history.
So welcome, Tina, and it's a pleasure to have you. Thank you so much.
It's a pleasure to be here and very honoured to be here with you, Giovanni.
Thank you. Thank you.
So after some brief introductions now, we should proceed to your interview so we can ask you a few questions and three main themes.
So we should crack on that. So, first of all, so based on your experience in multilateral agreements,
how difficult do you think it is to bring together so many countries to an agreement such as the Montreal Protocol so that it benefits all the parts?
Thank you, Giovanni. And really, I will start by saying that the United Nations is strong because it has an amazing
convening power and the United Nations is nothing more but an honest broker.
Where it provides a space where countries can come with different opinions, different positions, negotiate and discuss.
And where they want to solve the challenges that they face.
International countries, international settings.
So once you try to unravel and solve the specific challenges, then consensus arrived.
That consensus is being achieved. So I, I do think that the more countries see the benefits of their consensus of the result of the discussions,
the more committed they are and the more willing they are to join the discussions, the negotiations and the agreement.
And if you ask me, what is the thrust of the success and coming back to to the Montreal Protocol, I would say two things.
First, the interaction between science, a very solid science policy and diplomacy.
And second, the fact that this protocol doesn't say to the countries, don't do that.
You're not allowed to do that. It provided another option of doing it.
So and it provided also the support and the assistance for the countries to be able to deliver on what has been agreed at the Montreal Protocol.
Okay. So that's Salisbury. And so it's what you mean, like making explicit benefits to everybody.
That could be critical. Exactly. That's good.
Thank you. So next question is, what are the general strengths and weaknesses of this type of multilateral approaches?
And are there any more or less appropriate for different types of challenges?
Yes. I think, as I said before, I think the United Nation offers the space of having countries coming together.
And the similarities of these conventions, of these multilateral environmental agreements is that they focus on one specific theme.
Now, one thing may be a very, very big theme, but still, most of the times they are approaching the issue more thematically.
I this is the strength because it allows countries to discuss and it allows governments to put forward their own national positions.
But on the other hand, it reflects a weakness.
A weakness of how our own governments are being formed at a national level
where you have the different sectors and these of course is being scaled up.
I think the national discussions at the international level.
So I believe that the strength and the weakness are the two sides of the same coin.
The international the multilateral environmental agreements offer a possibility
of harmonising the different policies that are going to be implemented by many,
many countries. And the more countries implement, the better the result will be.
But of course, how do you achieve this? Harmonisation is also a big challenge.
And to wrap up, I think that the Montreal Protocol going back to the Montreal Protocol, had universal membership and it still has.
So you have 198 parties. This is a very big strength of the protocol.
You have a very solid science that advises that the countries that guides countries to take the decisions upon facts and figures.
And then you have a funding mechanism which assist parties in delivering on their commitments.
So these are their strengths. And the challenge for me is the way our minds work, the mindset of how you bring everything together.
So when you go back to your country and you have what you have from the Montreal Protocol, how do you link that to other agendas?
How do you link it to climate change? How do you link it to the circular economy?
How do we get to the energy efficiency? And I think this is where the challenge lies.
And it's, I think, a challenge of our mindset and of our institutions.
That's very, very insightful comments.
Thank you. So could you tell us what's meaning to us, this option of this question later?
But I think it's very appropriate now. So could you tell us briefly about your work under the Vienna Convention and Ocean Protection?
Yeah. Well, I can tell you with one possibly phrase that it has been the most rewarding part of my career now and of my life, because I think,
you know, it's a very bearing sort of divide between what is personal and what is professional in the way that you're doing.
Your work is personal. And I think it showed for me,
it was always every day a sort of a gratitude of what I was doing and sort of an injection of optimism in whatever I was doing and passion.
So I think the sort of gratitude that you have, all these countries coming together and whatever you decide,
it affects the lives of people that that living in those countries.
And then the passion and the commitment and this sense of of a family,
of a community that has that common goal has been one of the most rewarding experiences that I had in my life.
Well, that's very good to hear. Thank you.
So what do you think can in your opinion, which are the policy mechanisms could could achieve help or help us achieve the global temperature targets?
As I said, I think I have alluded to the way that I would like to respond to this question earlier on by saying
that it is not about how many more mechanisms we have or what different types of mechanisms we have.
I think we have a lot. It is about how we bring everything together.
It is about how we have this sort of revolution in our minds.
An intellectual revolution. A shift in minds, a shift in education.
How do you bring the difference? How do you go?
Apart from sectors beyond sectors, you don't have the energy sector.
You have an energy system, you don't have the food sector. You have a food system.
And the food system has inputs and outputs and interfaces with all of the other systems.
So I think for me, it's not the question of how more and what more, but how we bring everything together.
And if I have one more minute. Giovanni, I want to make an intro.
We have had experience in the past of an incredible cooperation and incredible synergy that happened between the UN F,
triple C, which is the climate convention and the Montreal Protocol, where we are discussing exactly the amendment of Kigali.
Because basically what has happened,
we took one group of chemicals that was part of the climate convention mandate and we brought it under the Montreal Protocol.
And this has never been done before in the history of the United Nations.
And it shows that when governments see the opportunities and when the governments understand what policy mechanisms can deliver better for them,
then they make it. They make it happen.
So this is an example of a coordination cooperation between different policy mechanisms that exist, and each one of them has its own role.
That's great. So about that. Do you think there was a specific trigger that that that helped to the declaration?
So what what brought like bringing one chemical thing to point to a different agreement.
The trigger was the trigger was that the Montreal Protocol has been working very well within the refrigeration and air conditioning systems,
and the parties saw that this was an opportunity to ensure that they have a climate change mitigation strategy through the protocol,
through the Montreal Protocol. However, using all the benefits and the the specifications, the modalities of the protocol itself.
So if the parties would regulate and would commit to phased down schedules for HFCS, then they would have only the benefits of the Montreal Protocol,
like funding, capacity development assistance in the transition from one chemical to another.
So they saw the opportunity and they saw that there was a gap there and underneath need that everything was win, win and they moved ahead.
That's brilliant. And they saw that that benefit straight away.
So I was meaning to ask before you just mentioned that it's not only about bringing in what else needs to be done.
It's not a question of what are the policy agreements or what else, but a combination of things.
So you saying it's a combination of having our mind open to see where the opportunities are
and whether one opportunity provides a solution for a challenge in another convention.
And I think it's this and it's this sort of also need to maximise the benefits
that you have from existing treaties and conventions that have been working very,
very well.
And I think this has been one of the issues that gave a different momentum to the Montreal Protocol when the HFCS were incorporated into the protocol,
not because they were threatening the ozone layer, but because they were threatening climate change.
Yes. That that's exactly what what it was trying to achieve.
So taking on to that question, I mean, I know you've already said like what are the lessons learnt or or what else do we do?
We need to know from this type of, of agreement, specifically the Kigali amendment,
to what do you think in the future could help in the negotiation aspect?
If I summarise what we're very where we keep going, I would say.
Possibly seven points. Let me see if I count them correctly, but let me try to be more specific.
I think the first one is that science has a critical role to play.
Mm hmm. So science saw the were scientific projections for climate change mitigation.
If you are facing down each of these. So science was the first point for sure.
The second one is the negotiations were very difficult.
So we need to set very realistic and tangible objectives like steppingstones to the
overall objective of having the age of six being incorporated into the protocol.
So these are the realistic and tangible objectives I think is also an important part of the negotiation process.
The third is that when countries negotiate, they don't want to be difficult.
They want simply to bring forward the challenges that they have in implementation or in convincing their national,
their national, their citizens that this is a good way forward.
So trying to find solutions to the specific problems that the countries have before you negotiate the actual text is a very important part.
I think the fourth one is that you could possibly combine the formal discussions of
the United Nations with informal discussions that can happen into different fora,
into different workshops, where you try to really have a more open and frank discussion about the real challenges that are happening on the ground.
The Fifth could be that. The Montreal Protocol has a very integrated sense of fairness because of the funding facility that it has.
So you just provide support to the countries to deliver on what they have agreed.
And then possibly the the fact that you in in the discussions throughout the Kigali amendment,
throughout the HFC discussions we also had are private sector.
The industries were quite involved in their own way in parallel discussions with industries from developing countries.
So they were also aware of the challenges that industries in developing countries were facing.
And finally, as I said, the objection of the injection of optimism and this sense of pride and ownership of the process was also very important.
Yes. That's brilliant. Very brilliant way to summarise all the points.
Thank you. So I was just thinking that from a point of view.
So we look at the production photo pooling appliances from a very mix of of perspectives.
So we look at the engineering side, but we also look at the political economy in each countries.
And and of course,
the international agreements such as Kigali influences a lot now that the the current and the future production of cooling appliances.
So I was just wondering, do you think that the Kigali amendment should bring in stronger perspectives on the circular economy?
So what I mean by that is that they also account for coolants as well as machines.
And do you think another agreement is necessary?
I think the Kigali amendment did that in the way that when you when we when we were discussing the
agencies and how these were incorporated or whether they would be incorporated in the Montreal Protocol,
there were many countries that brought forward the issue of energy efficiency.
And many countries said you shouldn't look only at having a low global warming potential refrigerants refrigerant,
which is more protective of climate and ozone.
But you need to think of other considerations because this may matter more for climate change mitigation.
So energy efficiency was one of these parameters. So the discussion when do you go to climate change considerations is always shifting
from the product or the refrigerant to assist them a more systemic approach.
So I think Montreal Protocol managed to do that.
This is an ongoing discussion still how we incorporate if the parties decide to incorporate energy
efficiency in the in in throughout the chain of the Montreal Protocol activities and phases.
But I think the linkages is there not so not so deep, not so strong, but the linkage is there.
I totally agree with what you said about looking at the entire systems and not looking only at refrigerants and then protecting the ozone layer.
So that's exactly what we're trying to do with the global production network.
So looking at the and the process from the design stage, the extraction resources, the use up until the disposal of waste.
And as you said, it's very, very well known that the for cooling appliances, the energy use of face is the one that that requires a lot of energy.
And a lot of this energy is comes from non-renewable resources.
And here I do think this is exactly the the institution and also in the in the revolution that we were talking before,
I mean, how we we go from the the linear economy that we have now and from this mentality of taking,
making and wasting to how we consume, how we produce, we consume, and whatever we consume is feeding back into the same system.
And this needs, of course, a change in the design, a change in the business model.
It also needs to assist consumers to behave like that because they don't want to have a problem thinking,
Oh, now what am I going to do with my iPhone or my phone?
What am I going to do? You need to provide them the solutions and easy solutions for them to have it within their lives will be the same.
You know, if it is easy to go and buy something, it should be very easy to dispose it correctly.
And I think this is where we need to shift our effort.
Yes, and I agree with that.
And I also think that consumers should be should become as they become more aware of these solutions, they begin demanding them as well.
So it's like a bilateral way of changing things.
So when consumers are demanding things and when companies are providing them to raising awareness.
So that's that's great. And so I think to find a lot of discussion about circular economy.
So do you think in the future that circular economy principles should be considered in policy making for climate agreements?
Oh, absolutely. I think if we see them, our target of 1.5 degree abstentions increased, then we think that, you know,
if I'm if I'm having the numbers correctly, approximately 50% or 55% of these reductions are coming from energy and transport.
Then 45% comes from different production uses and land uses.
So the circular economy sits exactly in the second part, the way that we produce, the way that we consume, in the way that we use our land.
I think it's very important in, in, in, in whatever we are doing from now on.
A it as I said, it will be difficult to change your mindsets, to change our institutions.
But there is a lot of work that is being done, a lot of work that is being done by scientific institutions and organisations that could assist
countries in in thinking that national in designing their national policies differently.
And of course, this will be reflected in international agreements as well.
Great. Thank you. And I think that land use is a very important part in the circular economy.
So one of the main objectives, as we both know, as changing the resources and trying to keep them in,
not ideally in a perpetual loop, so that that will mean extracting less of any resource that needed.
So and that's actually a great transition to tell a section about your current work.
So what you're doing right now with desertification, so and so, drawing on your current experiences in combating desertification,
I think that presumably climate change is the primary connexion between the increasing cooling demand and desertification.
But do you think there are others? I think it's an indirect link when we talk about the certification.
Certification is basically land degradation that appears in areas where you don't have much water.
So when you have in dry lands.
And in land degradation basically is when you have the land and you take out of the land, its productivity and you take out of the land,
our ability to have good food, to have to water supply, a clean water supply, to have fibre for the clothes that we are wearing.
So again, it's it's a loop. And I think the most important part there is, since you have different needs, different human needs competing for land,
how do you do you move from managing your land to planning for all these different needs with circular economy principles also in your mind?
And I think again, this is where the big challenge and the big opportunity is as we are also moving into this UN decade of ecosystem restoration,
which is from now from 2022 to 2030.
And of course the healthier the land is, the more carbon the soil can absorb,
the less climate warming you have because you have a lot of climate change mitigation potential.
Yes, I think so. As you said rightly point that there is there is a connexion between everything.
So. I'm just thinking that, for example, as of the killing,
demand is expected to increase exponentially in the next few years with with hot countries becoming hotter,
and especially countries like with big populations like China and India,
which are starting to become to the middle class more, they can afford more of this unit.
So it's very challenging and and is something that we need to to tackle in conjunction.
And I think their job I mean, the main issue is not so much not so much on the land degradation,
but on the positive side when you talk about land restoration and we will be talking about land restoration in this decade of ecosystem restoration,
when you talk about land restoration, there are there are four different basically systems I'm not going to say ecosystems, but systems that are.
That big come together. But you need to see very well the interface.
One is the cities. And how cities will evolve rapidly, as you've said, how you know, how the middle class will be raised,
that the demand on the cooling appliances, but also how cities will evolve after the pandemic that we had.
Are people going to stay in the cities? Are they going to go a bit more rural and be able to telework from where they are?
So what is the city's system? The second one is these rural and actually the urban rural, which is very close to the cities.
But it's not cities. It's not it's not farmland.
So what do you do with the land there?
In the interface between city and Mountain City environment.
Then you have the agricultural landscapes, and then you have the natural ecosystems that you would like to preserve.
And the more I think the more people can work from afar, the more basically we may have even more pressure on these natural ecosystems.
So everything again is linked into a nexus of all these different land uses the different land users and how you.
You care for land and how you become a land steward is a very important part and a very important challenge.
But we don't know how it really will end up. That's that's actually I mean being credibly interesting question.
And I was just wondering because you said if people will walking from far away from cities.
You know, I think probably the suburban landscape might change and and people working from rural areas.
So you think in that case, like the hinterlands of a city will will expand.
Yeah. And possibly, you know, you may not have so much cooling demand in the in the places where you work,
but you may have a lot of cooling demand in your buildings, in your houses.
And how do you do you prepare for things? And then again, it has to be a system.
For example, I'm working in a very in a very nice office.
But then.
When I work from home, I don't have the possibility to control of the cooling appliance that I have in the office and to turn it off, basically.
So these are all challenges that we need to really think there are.
Some of them are easy solutions that because we have been taken for granted our different comfort zones, we don't want to.
We don't want to go an extra step of thinking. So there will be changes and that we need to see the land restoration with all these
different entry points and these different challenges that we have and cooling,
definitely the demand for cooling is is one of them.
Right? Yes.
And also, as you said, when when working from rural spaces and not having to use the air conditioner in your office, it's a great alternative.
So if you are surrounded by green areas, which would call passive cooling area.
Yeah, yeah. It could change things very significantly for energy demand.
But but I also feel and I think we need to be also very pragmatic and very vigilant when we discuss about these things,
on how these can be interpreted and transferred to a developing country where the where the demands
are different and the needs are different and the expectations of people are completely different.
So I think we we need to start thinking of solutions that can be not a solution that fits all circumstances,
but solutions that meet different needs and different, different circumstances.
We need to have always options. We need we need to have policy options that we offer.
And a single solution need to be adaptable and really consider different contexts of of
environment and different climates for regions and countries and behaviours of people as well.
One that's great. You've probably already said many of these.
But one final question. What do you think of the take away message for combating from combating desertification, for sustainable cooling?
Do you have anything to add? I know we've discussed plenty already, but there is anything else.
I would say I would summarise what we've said by the following, that if we want to have healthy land, we must have healthy people.
And if we want to have healthy people, we need to have two very, very specific value chains that are not interrupted.
One is the medical value chain and the other one is the food chain.
And both of them are based on cold chains, are based on our ability to cool our medicines,
to cool our vaccines, to cool our food that is transported from the for the farmland to the market.
So cooling is everywhere is the basis of whatever we do over every single activity.
So I want to see cooling as a connector.
As a connector, even from the different systems of land that we were discussing previously cities, rural areas, farmlands and natural ecosystems.
And that's, that's very insightful. Yes, we have realised that sometimes cooling is not very well acknowledged.
It's like one of those underrated areas,
but it's extremely important for human activities and it has been really tested during this pandemic situation.
But yeah, well if there is something else, what I think that's been very insightful discussion, very interesting perspectives.
Steve and I want to thank you very, very deeply for your valuable time and unique contribution and and your insights.
And thank you very much for the work that you have been doing in the university.
And I really feel that there are many lessons for policymakers,
both at national and international level, and I look forward to listening to any updates of your work.
Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Tina. And thank you for your work as well, which has been very critical for for international agreement.
So we have reached the end of our discussion, but we are again looking forward to discussing other issues related to cooling in the future.
So thank you very much again, Tina, and hope to see you again.
Thank you. Bye bye.