Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris), Paris climate accord or Paris climate agreement, is an agreement

within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas
emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated
by representatives of 196 parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCCin Paris and adopted by
consensus on 12 December 2015. [3][4] As of August 2017, 195 UNFCCC members have signed the agreement, 159 of
which have ratified it.[1]

In the Paris Agreement, each country determines, plans and regularly reports its own contribution it should make in
order to mitigate global warming.[5] There is no mechanism to force [6] a country to set a specific target by a specific
date,[7] but each target should go beyond previously set targets.

In 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement,
causing widespread condemnation in the European Union and many sectors in the United States. Under the agreement,
the earliest effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020.

In July 2017, France’s environment minister Nicolas Hulot announced France’s five-year plan to ban all petrol and
diesel vehicles by 2040 as part of the Paris Agreement. Hulot also stated that France would no longer use coal to
produce electricity after 2022 and that up to €4bn will be invested in boosting energy efficiency.

Aims

The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through: [9]

"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to
pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would
significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low
greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient
development."

Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement
has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[10][11]

The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement. [12]

Nationally determined contributions

Global carbon dioxide emissions by jurisdiction.

The contributions that each individual country should make in order to achieve the worldwide goal are determined by
all countries individually and called "nationally determined contributions" (NDCs). [5] Article 3 requires them to be
"ambitious", "represent a progression over time" and set "with the view to achieving the purpose of this Agreement".
The contributions should be reported every five years and are to be registered by the  UNFCCC Secretariat.[13] Each
further ambition should be more ambitious than the previous one, known as the principle of 'progression'. [14]Countries
can cooperate and pool their nationally determined contributions. The Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions pledged during the 2015 Climate Change Conference serve—unless provided otherwise—as the initial
Nationally determined contribution.

The level of NDCs set by each country[7] will set that country's targets. However the 'contributions' themselves are not
binding as a matter of international law, as they lack the specificity, normative character, or obligatory language
necessary to create binding norms. [15] Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force [6] a country to set a target in
their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met. [7][16] There will be only a "name
and shame" system[17] or as János Pásztor, the U.N. assistant secretary-general on climate change, told CBS News
(US), a "name and encourage" plan. [18] As the agreement provides no consequences if countries do not meet their
commitments, consensus of this kind is fragile. A trickle of nations exiting the agreement may trigger the withdrawal
of more governments, bringing about a total collapse of the agreement. [19]

Effects on global temperature

The negotiators of the Agreement, however, stated that the NDCs and the 2 °C reduction target were insufficient;
instead, a 1.5 °C target is required, noting "with concern that the estimated aggregate greenhouse gas emission levels
in 2025 and 2030 resulting from the intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within least-cost 2 °C
scenarios but rather lead to a projected level of 55 gigatonnes in 2030", and recognizing furthermore "that much
greater emission reduction efforts will be required in order to hold the increase in the global average temperature to
below 2 °C by reducing emissions to 40 gigatonnes or to 1.5 °C".[20]

Although not the sustained temperatures over the long term which the Agreement addresses, in the first half of 2016
average temperatures were about 1.3 °C (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above the average in 1880, when global record-
keeping began.[21]

When the agreement achieved enough signatures to cross the threshold on 5 October 2016, US President Barack
Obama claimed that "Even if we meet every target ... we will only get to part of where we need to go." He also said
that "this agreement will help delay or avoid some of the worst consequences of climate change. It will help other
nations ratchet down their emissions over time, and set bolder targets as technology advances, all under a strong
system of transparency that allows each nation to evaluate the progress of all other nations." [22][23]

Global stocktake

The global stocktake will kick off with a "facilitative dialogue" in 2018. At this convening, parties will evaluate how
their NDCs stack up to the nearer-term goal of peaking global emissions and the long-term goal of achieving net zero
emissions by the second half of this century.[24]

The implementation of the agreement by all member countries together will be evaluated every 5 years, with the first
evaluation in 2023. The outcome is to be used as input for new nationally determined contributions of member states.
[25]
 The stocktake will not be of contributions/achievements of individual countries but a collective analysis of what
has been achieved and what more needs to be done.

The stocktake works as part of the Paris Agreement's effort to create a "ratcheting up" of ambition in emissions cuts.
Because analysts have agreed that the current NDCs will not limit rising temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, the
global stocktake reconvenes parties to assess how their new NDCs must evolve so that they continually reflect a
country's "highest possible ambition".[24]
While ratcheting up the ambition of NDCs is a major aim of the global stocktake, it assesses efforts beyond
mitigation. The 5 year reviews will also evaluate adaptation, climate finance provisions, and technology development
and transfer.[24]

Structure

The Paris Agreement has a 'bottom up' structure in contrast to most international environmental law treaties which are
'top down', characterised by standards and targets set internationally, for states to implement. [26] Unlike its predecessor,
the Kyoto Protocol, which sets commitment targets that have legal force, the Paris Agreement, with its emphasis on
consensus-building, allows for voluntary and nationally determined targets. [27] The specific climate goals are thus
politically encouraged, rather than legally bound. Only the processes governing the reporting and review of these
goals are mandated under international law. This structure is especially notable for the United States—because there
are no legal mitigation or finance targets, the agreement is considered an "executive agreement rather than a treaty".
Because the UNFCCC treaty of 1992 received the consent of the Senate, this new agreement does not require further
legislation from Congress for it to take effect. [27]

Another key difference between the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol is their scopes. While the Kyoto Protocol
differentiated between Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries, this bifurcation is blurred in the Paris Agreement, as all
parties will be required to submit emissions reductions plans. [28] While the Paris Agreement still emphasizes the
principle of "Common but Differentiated Responsibility and Respective Capabilities"—the acknowledgement that
different nations have different capacities and duties to climate action—it does not provide a specific division between
developed and developing nations.[28]

Mitigation provisions and carbon markets

Article 6 has been flagged as containing some of the key provisions of the Paris Agreement. [29] Broadly, it outlines the
cooperative approaches that parties can take in achieving their nationally determined carbon emissions reductions. In
doing so, it helps establish the Paris Agreement as a framework for a global carbon market. [30]

Linkage of trading systems and international transfer of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs)

Paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 establish a framework to govern the international transfer of mitigation outcomes (ITMOs).
The Agreement recognizes the rights of Parties to use emissions reductions outside of their own jurisdiction toward
their NDC, in a system of carbon accounting and trading. [30]

This provision requires the "linkage" of various carbon emissions trading systems—because measured emissions
reductions must avoid "double counting", transferred mitigation outcomes must be recorded as a gain of emission
units for one party and a reduction of emission units for the other. [29] Because the NDCs, and domestic carbon trading
schemes, are heterogeneous, the ITMOs will provide a format for global linkage under the auspices of the UNFCCC.
[31]
 The provision thus also creates a pressure for countries to adopt emissions management systems—if a country
wants to use more cost-effective cooperative approaches to achieve their NDCs, they will need to monitor carbon units
for their economies.[32]

Sustainable Development Mechanism

Paragraphs 6.4-6.7 establish a mechanism "to contribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gases and support sustainable
development".[33] Though there is no specific name for the mechanism as yet, many Parties and observers have
informally coalesced around the name "Sustainable Development Mechanism" or "SDM". [34][35] The SDM is
considered to be the successor to the Clean Development Mechanism, a flexible mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol,
by which parties could collaboratively pursue emissions reductions for their Intended Nationally Determined
Contributions. The Sustainable Development Mechanism lays the framework for the future of the Clean Development
Mechanism post-Kyoto (in 2020).

In its basic aim, the SDM will largely resemble the Clean Development Mechanism, with the dual mission to 1.
contribute to global GHG emissions reductions and 2. support sustainable development. [36] Though the structure and
processes governing the SDM are not yet determined, certain similarities and differences from the Clean Development
Mechanism can already be seen. Notably, the SDM, unlike the Clean Development Mechanism, will be available to
all parties as opposed to only Annex-1 parties, making it much wider in scope.[37]

Since the Kyoto Protocol went into force, the Clean Development Mechanism has been criticized for failing to
produce either meaningful emissions reductions or sustainable development benefits in most instances. [38] It has also
suffered from the low price of Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), creating less demand for projects. These
criticisms have motivated the recommendations of various stakeholders, who have provided through working groups
and reports, new elements they hope to see in SDM that will bolster its success. [31] The specifics of the governance
structure, project proposal modalities, and overall design are expected to come during the next [when?] Conference of the
Parties in Marrakesh.

Adaptation provisions

Adaptation issues garnered more focus in the formation of the Paris Agreement. Collective, long-term adaptation
goals are included in the Agreement, and countries must report on their adaptation actions, making adaptation a
parallel component of the agreement with mitigation. [39] The adaptation goals focus on enhancing adaptive capacity,
increasing resilience, and limiting vulnerability.[40]

Ensuring finance

See also: Green Climate Fund

At the Paris Conference in 2015 where the Agreement was negotiated, the developed countries reaffirmed the
commitment to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020, and agreed to continue mobilizing finance at
the level of $100 billion a year until 2025. [41] The commitment refers to the pre-existing plan to provide US$100
billion a year in aid to developing countries for actions on climate change adaptation and mitigation. [42]

Though both mitigation and adaptation require increased climate financing, adaptation has typically received lower
levels of support and has mobilised less action from the private sector. [39] A 2014 report by the OECD found that just
16 percent of global finance was directed toward climate adaptation in 2014. [43] The Paris Agreement called for a
balance of climate finance between adaptation and mitigation, and specifically underscoring the need to increase
adaptation support for parties most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, including Least Developed Countries
and Small Island Developing States. The agreement also reminds parties of the importance of public grants, because
adaptation measures receive less investment from the public sector. [39]John Kerry, as Secretary of State, announced
that the U.S. would double its grant-based adaptation finance by 2020. [27]

Some specific outcomes of the elevated attention to adaptation financing in Paris include the G7 countries'
announcement to provide US $420 million for Climate Risk Insurance, and the launching of a Climate Risk and Early
Warning Systems (CREWS) Initiative. [44] In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to
the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks." [45][46][47] So
far, the Green Climate Fund has now received over $10 billion in pledges. Notably, the pledges come from developed
nations like France, the US, and Japan, but also from developing countries such as Mexico, Indonesia, and Vietnam. [27]

Loss and damage

A new issue that emerged[citation needed] as a focal point in the Paris negotiations rose from the fact that many of the worst
effects of climate change will be too severe or come too quickly to be avoided by adaptation measures. The Paris
Agreement specifically acknowledges the need to address loss and damage of this kind, and aims to find appropriate
responses.[48] It specifies that loss and damage can take various forms—both as immediate impacts from extreme
weather events, and slow onset impacts, such as the loss of land to sea-level rise for low-lying islands. [27]

The push to address loss and damage as a distinct issue in the Paris Agreement came from the Alliance of Small Island
States and the Least Developed Countries, whose economies and livelihoods are most vulnerable to the negative
impacts of climate change.[27] Developed countries, however, worried that classifying the issue as one separate and
beyond adaptation measures would create yet another climate finance provision, or might imply legal liability for
catastrophic climate events.
In the end, all parties acknowledged the need for "averting, minimizing, and addressing loss and damage" but notably,
any mention of compensation or liability is excluded. [9] The agreement also adopts the Warsaw International
Mechanism for Loss and Damage, an institution that will attempt to address questions about how to classify, address,
and share responsibility for loss and damage.[48]

Enhanced transparency framework

While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by
technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition.
[49]
 Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that
establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and
developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both
technical and peer review.[49]

Flexibility mechanisms

While the enhanced transparency framework is universal, along with the global stocktaking to occur every 5 years, the
framework is meant to provide "built-in flexibility" to distinguish between developed and developing countries'
capacities. In conjunction with this, the Paris Agreement has provisions for an enhanced framework for capacity
building.[50] The agreement recognizes the varying circumstances of some countries, and specifically notes that the
technical expert review for each country consider that country's specific capacity for reporting. [50] The agreement also
develops a Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency to assist developing countries in building the necessary
institutions and processes for complying with the transparency framework. [50]

There are several ways in which flexibility mechanisms can be incorporated into the enhanced transparency
framework. The scope, level of detail, or frequency of reporting may all be adjusted and tiered based on a country's
capacity. The requirement for in-country technical reviews could be lifted for some less developed or small island
developing countries. Ways to assess capacity include financial and human resources in a country necessary for NDC
review.[50]

Adoption

The Paris Agreement was opened for signature on 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) at a ceremony in New York. [51] After
several European Union states ratified the agreement in October 2016, there were enough countries that had ratified
the agreement that produce enough of the world's greenhouse gases for the agreement to enter into force. [52] The
agreement went into effect on 4 November 2016.[2]

Negotiations

Within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, legal instruments may be adopted to reach the
goals of the convention. For the period from 2008 to 2012, greenhouse gas reduction measures were agreed in the
Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The scope of the protocol was extended until 2020 with the Doha Amendment to that
protocol in 2012.[53]

During the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference, the Durban Platform (and the Ad Hoc Working Group
on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action) was established with the aim to negotiate a legal instrument
governing climate change mitigation measures from 2020. The resulting agreement was to be adopted in 2015. [54]

Adoption
Heads of delegations at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

Main article: 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference

At the conclusion of COP 21 (the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties, which guides the Conference), on 12
December 2015, the final wording of the Paris Agreement was adopted by consensus by all of the 195 UNFCCC
participating member states and the European Union [3] to reduce emissions as part of the method for reducing
greenhouse gas. In the 12 page Agreement, [47] the members promised to reduce their carbon output "as soon as
possible" and to do their best to keep global warming "to well below 2 degrees C" [3.6 degrees F]. [55]

Signature and entry into force

Signing by John Kerry in United Nations General Assembly Hall for the United States

The Paris Agreement was open for signature by States and regional economic integration organizations that are Parties
to the UNFCCC (the Convention) from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017 at the UN Headquarters in New York. [56]

The agreement stated that it would enter into force (and thus become fully effective) only if 55 countries that produce
at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (according to a list produced in 2015) [57] ratify, accept, approve
or accede to the agreement.[58][59] On 1 April 2016, the United States and China, which together represent almost 40%
of global emissions, issued a joint statement confirming that both countries would sign the Paris Climate Agreement.
[60][61]
 175 Parties (174 states and the European Union) signed the agreement on the first date it was open for signature.
[51][62]
 On the same day, more than 20 countries issued a statement of their intent to join as soon as possible with a view
to joining in 2016. With ratification by the European Union, the Agreement obtained enough parties to enter into
effect as of 4 November 2016.

European Union and its member states

Both the EU and its member states are individually responsible for ratifying the Paris Agreement. A strong preference
was reported that the EU and its 28 member states deposit their instruments of ratification at the same time to ensure
that neither the EU nor its member states engage themselves to fulfilling obligations that strictly belong to the other,
[63]
 and there were fears that disagreement over each individual member state's share of the EU-wide reduction target,
as well as Britain's vote to leave the EU might delay the Paris pact.[64] However, the European Parliament approved
ratification of the Paris Agreement on 4 October 2016, [52]and the EU deposited its instruments of ratification on 5
October 2016, along with several individual EU member states. [64]

Concerns

Not enough

According to UNEP the emission cut targets in November 2016 will result in temperature rise by 3 °C above
preindustrial levels, far above the 2 °C of the Paris climate agreement. [79] Twenty years after the Kyoto Protocol fossil
fuels are still humanity's primary energy source and consumption continues to grow. [80]

According to a study published in Nature in June 2016, current country pledges are insufficient to meet the Paris
Agreement goal of keeping global temperature rise "well below 2 °C". [81][82]

Lack of binding enforcement mechanism

Although the agreement was lauded by many, including French President François Hollande and UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon,[59] criticism has also surfaced. For example, James Hansen, a former NASA scientist and a
climate change expert, voiced anger that most of the agreement consists of "promises" or aims and not firm
commitments.[83]

Institutional asset owners associations and think-tanks have also observed that the stated objectives of the Paris
Agreement are implicitly "predicated upon an assumption – that member states of the United Nations, including high
polluters such as China, the US, India, Japan, Brazil, Canada, Russia, Indonesia and Australia, which generate more
than half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, will somehow drive down their carbon pollution voluntarily and
assiduously without any binding enforcement mechanism to measure and control CO 2 emissions at any level from
factory to state, and without any specific penalty gradation or fiscal pressure (for example a carbon tax) to discourage
bad behaviour."[84]

Limited government role

World Pensions Council Director-General Nicolas J. Firzli insisted that, in reality, the role of government signatories
would be limited in most instances, and that private sector asset owners would take the lead by expanding massively
their investment in "clean tech, low-carbon ventures" and innovative companies which pursue socially and
environmentally sound corporate strategies, regardless of whether the new US administration or other governments
renege on their commitments.[85]

The inevitable nature of the secular trend towards divestment from polluting fossil fuels was reconfirmed at 6th annual
World Pensions Forum held in Greenwich in February 2017, with all institutional investors in attendance, including
U.S. and Canadian pension funds, agreeing that climate-change conscious, responsible investments "constitute a
[real, ] rising trend: [they’re] here to stay". [86]

Central Luzon State University

Central Luzon State University (CLSU) is a state university on a 658-hectare campus in Muñoz, Nueva
Ecija, Philippines. It is the lead agency of the Muñoz Science Community and the seat of the Regional Research and
Development Center in Central Luzon. To date, CLSU is one of the premiere institutions for agriculture in the
Philippines and in Southeast Asia known for its research in aquaculture, ruminants, crops, orchard, and water
management. It has also been placed between the sixth and the twenty-first spot for the most academically-excellent
university in the country for various years, overwhelming most schools in Metro Manila. It has been placed in the 100
most significant schools is Asia numerous times as well. [1]

CLSU is the first comprehensive state university to undergo institutional accreditation. It is a declared Cultural
Property of the Philippines with the code of PH-03-0027 due to its high historical, cultural, academical, and
agricultural importance to the nation.[2][better  source  needed] It is one of the four 'Knowledge Eagle Universities of Nueva
Ecija' and the most academically-excellent in all of Central Luzon. It is also listed as the second most beautiful school
campus in the Philippines due to its expansive and rural-inspired landscapes and architectures, which focus on
sustainability and ecological balance with modernism.

History[edit]

Central Luzon State University is in the Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines. It started as a farm school
and in 1907 became Central Luzon Agricultural School (CLAS) with the intention of promoting agriculture and
mechanics arts. Later, it included the promotion of homemaking arts among its commitments. [3]

In 1954, CLAS was converted into Central Luzon Agricultural College (CLAC) [4] with the mission of promoting
agricultural education. In 1964, it was elevated to a university — the Central Luzon State University — to provide
advance instruction and technical and professional training in agriculture and mechanics arts, and promote research,
literature, philosophy, sciences, technology and arts. Over the years, CLSU has been known as an agriculture-oriented
institution.

In April 2007, CLSU celebrated its centenary.

Present day[edit]

Today, it has transformed into a comprehensive university offering undergraduate and graduate courses. Lately, it has
been designated as a zonal university in Luzon as one of the more respected institutions of higher learning in the
Philippines.

The university is the lead agency of the Muñoz Science Community and the seat of the Regional Research and
Development Center in the Central Luzon. To date, CLSU is one of the premier institutions of agriculture in Southeast
Asia known for its breakthrough researches in aquatic culture (pioneer in the sex reversal of tilapia), [5] ruminant, crops,
orchard, and water management researches.

Campus[edit]

CLSU is on a 658-hectare sprawling main campus in the Science City of Muñoz, 150 km north of Manila. It has a
more than 1000-hectare site for ranch-type buffalo production and forestry development up the hills of Carranglan
town, in northern Nueva Ecija, 40 km from the main campus.

The Main Gate[edit]

CLSU main gate

Showing a farmer with his carabao and plow. School officials and students readily consider CLSU the biggest
landmark in Muñoz. In the early 1900s, CLSU made a name by pioneering scientific farming, adopting the half-day
academic work and half-day practicum, and promoting citizenship training.

Up to the time it became a university in 1964, the student government ran the affairs of what was then known as
“Little Republic.” Its governance was patterned after the setup of the national government and the yearly elections
were a much anticipated event. [6]

The Reimer’s Hall[edit]

The Reimer’s Hall Painting by known Folk Painter Elito Circa

Built during the time of superintendent William Wade Head (1935-1936), was designed to show talking films, then a
first in the province.

Made of wood, steel frame and concrete, with a galvanized iron roof, the building was later fitted with acoustics for
cinema functions and bowling alleys. It was named Concordia Hall during the time of superintendent Christian
Reimer and later renamed Reimer’s Hall.

Equipped with a big stage, the 500-seat hall had been used to stage plays produced by students. In 1939, the school’s
first Filipino superintendent, Emeterio Asinas, improved the structure so it can hold functions and social affairs. The
most significant affair held there was the inauguration of CLAC on Jan. 6, 1952. Then President Elpidio Quirino and
his defense secretary, Ramon Magsaysay, graced the event. Among the other prominent guests were senators,
congressmen, Cabinet members, diplomats, school officials and representatives of the country’s top universities and
colleges.

Magsaysay would have returned to Reimer’s Hall on April 5, 1955, as Philippine president during the golden jubilee
and graduation programs, but he died in a plane crash on March 17, 1955. He would have been conferred the honorary
degree of doctor of agricultural education, CLAC continued with the program. Two empty chairs, draped in black, and
a speaker’s stand decorated with academic regalia, diploma and citations for Magsaysay were set up on the stage to
remember the late president.

A modern auditorium was later built beside Reimer’s Hall during the time of then CLSU president Amado Campos,
who changed the complexion of the campus with his more than P45-million infrastructure build-up during his term
from 1972 to 1986.[7]

Brief History[edit]

Central Luzon State University (CLSU) is one of the renowned and prestigious institutions of higher learning in the
Philippines. It has consistently produced well-trained professionals and technicians, provided services with marked
excellence.

CLAS: On April 12, 1907, it started as a farm school, the Central Luzon Agricultural School (CLAS), through
Executive Order No. 10 issued by then Governor General James F. Smith, James F. Smith. Its initial emphasis was on
the development of skilled and technician-type graduates to meet the human resource requirements in the opening and
cultivation of rich farmlands.[8]

As a school, CLAS stamped a class of its own. With its unique curriculum, it promoted agriculture and mechanic arts
which combined practicum and academic work. In time, CLAS became known as the “mother of vocational
agriculture schools” in the country.[9]

CLAC: The school was converted into Central Luzon Agricultural College (CLAC) on December 31, 1950 by virtue
of Executive Order No. 393 issued by then President Elpidio Quirino to promote agricultural education. As a higher
learning institution, CLAC distinguished itself as the first state college established by the Philippine government to
promote agricultural education, agricultural engineering and home economics, among others. [10]

CLSU: On June 18, 1964, CLAC was elevated into Central Luzon State University (CLSU) by virtue of Republic Act
No. 4067 “to give professional and technical training in agriculture and mechanic arts; provide advance instruction;
promote research, literature, philosophy, the sciences, technology and arts.” [11]

From its basically agricultural orientation, CLSU turned into a comprehensive higher education institution offering
various undergraduate and graduate courses.

The CLSU campus is a sprawling 658-hectare area in the Muñoz, 150 km north of Manila. On October 19, 2001,
CLSU was launched as the Model Agri-Tourism Site for Luzon under the Philippine Agri-Tourism Program, a joint
project of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Tourism.
Research[edit]

The Research Program primarily started in 1976 to help graduate students in their agricultural researches. Having
momentum and acknowledging the importance of research in an academic community, its thrust expanded to cover
several technical researches on selected agricultural commodities. In 1978, the Research and Extension Programs were
merged which gave birth to the Research and Development Center (R & DC). The R & DC adopted the pipeline
approach as its strategy to spur countryside group for information and technology dissemination and contribute to the
realization of the university’s development goals. It relives the maxim “development is research utilized”. Research
was, therefore, envisioned to establish a foundation that would accomplish one of the trilogies of functions of the
University.

Moving on with this commitment, the R & DC became the Research, Extension and Training (RET) in 1987 where
prioritized research programs are important features and are geared towards improving the quality of life of the people
it serves.

Today, the Research Office has received prominence and has established a solid ground in its continuous and
relentless efforts towards contributing to countryside development.

Institutes and Centers[edit]

 University Graduate Program Office

 Information System Institute

 Institute of Sports, Physical Education and Recreation

 Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Management

 Center for Educational Resources and Development Services

 Center for Central Luzon Studies

 Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and Accreditation Program

 CLSU Open University

New Institutions In the Making[edit]

The University is currently in moving in favor of the possible establishment of a separate School of Fine Arts and
Architecture and a separate School of Literary Arts and Linguistics. The Central Luzon region lacks enough artists,
architects, and literary writers coming from its eastern provinces. The lack is intended to be fulfilled through the
establishment of such schools within Central Luzon State University, a fitting home as the university is the most
acclaimed in the region. The establishment of such schools is a precursor to the future establishment of the first Art
Gallary in the university.

Institute for Climate Change and Environmental

Management
ABOUT US

The adverse environmental risks and problems the country is facing necessitate a drive for environmental management
toward sustainable development. This depends on extensive public awareness and understanding, adoption of new
values and changes in attitudes toward the preservation of our natural and agricultural resources.

Responding to the call for conservation and management of the natural environment, the Office of the Vice President
for Academic Affairs of the Central Luzon State University proposed the creation of the Environmental Management
Institute (EMI). The CLSU Board of Regents approved the establishment of the EMI on March 11, 1997.
However, the complex environmental problems are intensified and aggravated by climate change. To oversee the
climate change impacts and adaptation measures locally, regionally and internationally, it was proposed that the
Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management be integrated in the Institute. On September 21, 2011 at CHED
Conference Room, HEDC  Building, Quezon City under Board Resolution No. 44-2011, the proposal was approved
and it was named as Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Management (ICCEM).

Goals

The Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Management (ICCEM) is a dynamic and world class institute
dedicated to lead and provide quality education, research and extension services on the causes and consequences of
climate change and provide environmental management in the natural and agricultural resources with options for
healthy, sustainable and productive environment.

 Objectives 

 To provide environmental education and training for careers in environmental studies. 

 To conduct researches on environmental issues and concerns. 

 To develop local community into resilient, thriving and sustainable community that is empowered, educated
and aware. 

 To prepare, produce and distribute instructional materials on environmental issues. 

 To offer extension services through dissemination of environmental information for public understanding and
awareness. 

 To develop partnership with all sectors of the society at the local, national, international levels to address
climate change and pursue environmental management. 

 To help build resistance to climate change threats using knowledge, tools, technologies and resources that are
environment friendly, ethical, sustainable, practical and affordable. 

 To develop, improve and package proper and appropriate technologies or management schemes for
biodiversity conservation of all ecosystems in the region. 

 To spearhead environmental management and conservation activities in the campus and the immediate
environs. 

 To conduct environmental and social impact assessment in order to monitor development projects or any
undertakings which significantly affect the quality of the environment. 

 To put up a BIODIVERSITYMUSEUM that shall showcase the diversity of life in the different ecosystems in
Region III.

SERVICES

1. Consultancy Services:

• Biodiversity Assessment

• Phytoremediation/Bioremediation

• Environmental Impact Assessment

2. Non-Formal Education through Capacity Building Activities:

• Environmental Management

• Environmental Issues and Concerns

 • Local Governance and the Environment

• Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation/ Mitigation Measures

• Integrated Pest Management

3. Extension Activities

• Training/Seminars being conducted

• Disaster Preparedness Seminar

• Biodiversity Conservation

• Waste Management

• Green Technology

• Phytoremediation

• Hydroponics Establishment

• Aquaponics Establishment

• Tree Planting Activities

• Film Showing

Biodiversity Center
The Biodiversity Center in Central Luzon and the Regional Integrated Coastal Resources Management (RIC) Learning
Center Building established at the CLSU Institute for Climate Change and Environmental Management (ICCEM)
were inaugurated at CLSU last June 25.

CLSU President Ruben C. Sevilleja and Department of Agriculture-Bureau of Agricultural Research (DA-BAR)
Executive Assistant for Administration Jay Borromeo, representing of BAR Director Nicomedes Eleazar, led the
unveiling of the marker.

The centers are now both open to all interested sectors such as students, teachers, researchers, farmers, and local
government units, among others.

The Biodiversity Center houses the Agrobiodiversity Museum, Biodiversity Molecular Laboratory, Training Room
and enhanced Arboretum, Conservation Park and Nursery. The construction of the center and appurtenant facilities
was funded by the DA-BAR through its Institutional Development Grant Program.

The newly-constructed agrobiodiversity museum is packed with P500,000 worth of equipment such as display boards
showcasing crops genetic diversity, biodiversity conservation efforts, climate change impact to agrobiodiversity and
indigenous crops in the Philippines. It has also agroecosystem diorama that shows different 3D colorful crops and
animals grown and raised in the country, eight aquaria with various freshwater fishes, and a 37” flat screen tv to
show their genetic and species diversity.

The RIC building on the other hand, was constructed for CLSU being the chosen RIC Resource Management Center
by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

As CLSU counterpart, the RIC Learning Center, the Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction and Management
Regional Learning Center (CDRLC), faculty room and the Lanai were established.

Dr. Annie Melinda Paz-Alberto, ICCEM Director, said that through the added buildings cum facilities, wider
information dissemination and public awareness on the importance of conservation of biodiversity can be achieved.
Bioproducts
Bioproducts are renewable products other than food and feed that are derived from agricultural, aquatic or forestry resources, or
municipal wastes. In this section, you will find information on the types of bioproducts, their production process, as well as
government initiatives in the bioproducts industry.

Benefits to the agriculture sector

The Canadian bioeconomy is filled with economic opportunity. The manufacturing of bio-based products offers farmers and
processors additional markets for commodities and new products. Farmers may realize economic gains from finding new uses for
‘wastes' such as manure and crop residues, or from crops specifically grown to supply the bioproducts sector.

Bioproducts represent an opportunity to strengthen and diversify the agricultural sector through adding value to wastes, new crops
development, specialized higher margin farm gate production, product diversification, added revenue streams, enhanced
competitiveness, and improved environmental sustainability.

Product diversification within the farm gate has the potential to enhance the profit margin on each hectare of farm land. As
farmers and rural communities seize bioproduct opportunities beyond the farm gate in pre-processing, processing and value-added
activities, the development of adaptable entrepreneurial business models, such as co-operatives, can help to create new, profitable
ventures. Bioproducts support innovation within the agriculture sector and align with market development and regulatory reform
priorities.

A few Canadian examples include:

 Transforming hemp and flax fibre into biomaterials for the automotive and construction industry;

 Using crop residues to produce bio-based chemicals for household cleaning products;

 Powering local communities using agricultural waste for bioenergy; and

 Converting crop oils into biofuels to power road transportation vehicles.

Biomass: The essential building block of bioproducts

Biomass can be defined as living and recently dead biological/renewable materials from agricultural (plant or animal), aquatic or
forestry resources including those from industrial and/or municipal wastes (source: The Manitoba Bioproducts Strategy).

In terms of agriculture, biomass can be obtained from a range of sources including traditional crops and purpose grown crops – the
latter being crops grown with the sole intent of becoming feedstocks for bioproducts. It can also be obtained from crops being
grown in areas not suitable for other feed and food crops or from waste streams such as crop residues (for example, straw and corn
stover) and manure. In fact, many farms in Canada now have anaerobic digesters on site that are able to use manure to produce
energy.

Canada's agriculture and agri-food sector is well positioned to explore new economic opportunities to produce biochemicals,
biomaterials, biofuels and bioenergy by building on its large biomass and water resource base, long history and strength in
genomics and plant breeding, sustainable crop production, diverse biomass sources, and efficient processing to meet high quality
standards of diverse global markets.

The Biomass Inventory Mapping and Analysis Tool provides that information. Accessible over the Internet, it offers interactive
queries and thematic maps that can guide users to sources in Canada of precisely the kinds and amounts of feedstocks they need
for their processing plants.
Bioproducts through History

While bioproducts are often considered through innovative and emerging, It is important to note that humanity has turned to
agricultural biomass to make useful products other than food and feed for thousands of years:

 Linen textiles, derived from flax, were widely traded as early as 2,000 Before Common Era (BCE).

 Straw has long been used in building materials (for example, thatched roofing or cob construction).

 Ethanol has existed in some form since the creation of the first alcoholic beverages and the first internal combustion
engine was designed to run on biofuel.

 First diesel engine was designed to run on peanut oil.

Petroleum-based and other synthetic products are relative newcomers compared to bio-based products. It is only in the past couple
of hundred years that the world's energy and materials needs have been largely met by non-biological sources, due to the
availability and relative affordability of coal, oil, and natural gas.