Climate migrants tend to move to cities in their own countries where they often end up in urban slums characterized by sub-standard housing. Credit: Donatas Dabravolskas/Shutterstock
Opinion by Jin-ho Chung (oxford, england)
Inter Press Service
OXFORD, England, Nov 24 (IPS) – The impacts of climate change on human mobility have yet to be fully understood and addressed on a global scale, even though some 3.3 to 3.6 billion people are highly vulnerable to climate change.
Contrary to popular perceptions, most climate migrants move internally to cities within their own countries, attracted by the perceived employment, education, and healthcare opportunities that urban areas offer.
As these numbers increase, urban areas across the Global South face mounting pressures to provide sufficient housing, jobs, and public services to serve their growing populations.
Those moving due to climate extremes and environmental degradation will most likely find themselves living in urban slums, exposed to unhygienic conditions and forced to live in sub-standard housing.
They could also face highly competitive job markets for which they may lack qualifications or experience, and limited access to healthcare and public services due to citizenship restrictions.
Urban authorities across the Global South will be nervously anticipating an influx of new arrivals as the climate crisis intensifies, grappling with the challenge of integrating these newcomers without increasing pressure on already stretched urban infrastructure and services.
For inspiration they might look at other urban areas that have made significant progress in recent years to enhance their resilience and sustainability.
During the course of my research, I have also wondered whether urban authorities could view the climate migration challenge as an opportunity – to not only alleviate pressures but also to simultaneously pursue development objectives, stimulate economies, and ensure safe and secure living conditions for all residents?
Enhancing urban development
A strategic policy response could help mitigate challenges while preparing cities for the future. City governments will need to play a pivotal role in transforming urban migration into an effective climate change adaptation strategy that benefits both climate-vulnerable rural communities and the cities they settle in.
By doing so, city governments can proactively manage the challenges posed by climate migrants while also harnessing their potential contributions to a city’s economic growth and resilience.
Migrants, acting as agents of change, often support their home communities through remittances. Dynamic labour markets, enabling the geographic mobility of workers, are essential to supply labour precisely where and when it’s needed.
Urban authorities will need to examine mobility patterns and trends, identifying and prioritizing urban areas and infrastructure that require support. Additional legal measures may also be required, including labour laws that strengthen the rights of migrant workers, ensure safe working environments, and provide protection from exploitation.
Migrants’ social inclusion can be secured through education and training, which enhance their employment prospects, and access to healthcare and affordable and suitable housing.
The role of city governments, however, will depend on national governments granting urban authorities more influence in critical policy domains. Policy collaboration across different levels of governance is also key to supporting migrants and enhancing climate-compatible development in both places of origin and destination through circular mobility initiatives.
Accelerating a climate-resilient urban renaissance
COPs have historically made progress in advancing policies, funding, and recommendations to support climate-related migrants and cities in their adaptation efforts. It is imperative that COP28 fulfil its promise to increase climate funding for developing countries, including cities.
Urban areas are not only home to more than half of the world’s population, but also serve as the primary engines of the global economy and job creation. Funds targeting cities can help accelerate the global green transition.
However, COP28 will need to address a critical shortage in available funding, laid bare by the UN Environment Programme’s recent Adaptation Gap report which estimates that developing countries will need between $215 and $387 billion in public adaptation finance per year this decade.
The trend of decreasing adaptation funds – only $21 billion was available in 2021, $4 billion less than the previous year – needs to be urgently addressed.
COP28, just a few weeks away, is an opportunity to emphasize the need for long-term policy support aimed at tackling the challenges associated with climate-induced migration to urban areas.
The decision to dedicate a day at the summit to ‘multilateral action, urbanization, and the built environment’ underscores the central role that cities will play in our transition to more resilient and sustainable societies. Anticipating and responding strategically to climate migration will support an urban renaissance that is able to cope with climate change while delivering secure housing, improved services, and decent jobs for all.
Jin-ho Chung is Research Fellow at United Nations University Centre for Policy Research (UNU-CPR)
UCKFIELD, UK, Nov 23 (IPS) – As we stand at a critical crossroads in climate change, we must recognise the inextricable link between nature and climate. This connection has been overlooked for far too long. IAR’s COP28 campaign, ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table,’ is gaining support from prominent figures such as Joanna Lumley, Peter Egan, and Jo Brand, who are joining forces with the organisation to address the urgent need for wildlife representation.
The campaign aims to push world leaders to seriously consider the planet’s wildlife and the biodiversity crisis during COP28 discussions.
As the world gears up for COP28, the urgency of addressing climate change has never been more apparent. However, it is crucial to recognise that climate change is not a standalone issue; it is intricately linked to biodiversity loss and, ultimately, the health and wellbeing of humanity. It is important to understand the critical role that conserving wildlife, habitats, nature, and ecosystems plays in mitigating climate change and safeguarding our shared future.
The toll on people and wildlife from climate change is not a distant threat; its impacts are already being felt across the globe, affecting both human populations and wildlife. Communities are already experiencing the adverse effects of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, flooding, droughts and severe storms.
Similarly, the changes to global weather patterns due to climate change pose direct threats to ecosystems worldwide. These changes disrupt habitats, pushing hundreds of thousands of species to the brink of extinction. As ecosystems unravel, the intricate web of biodiversity is compromised, affecting the delicate balance that sustains life on Earth.
We are now at a critical moment in global climate action. This urgency is underscored by a year of record-breaking temperatures and extreme weather events across the planet. COP28 serves as an evaluation of the progress since the promises made in Paris at COP21 and how effective these commitments have been in limiting long-term global temperature rises.
At COP28, we are hopeful that world leaders will come together, representing their countries, and step up their commitments to slow global heating. They will also consider the funding and adaptations needed to support the communities most affected.
The central question arises: Is it right that wildlife does not have a voice at the table where decisions impacting the entire planet are made? Wildlife must be given due representation in these discussions. Wildlife must have a seat at the table! International Animal Rescue (IAR) is leading the charge to ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table,’ mobilising 10,000 voices to implore world leaders to prioritise wildlife and biodiversity during the discussions.
IAR envisions a world where humans and animals thrive together in sustainable ecosystems. Conserving biodiversity is not just about protecting endangered species; it’s about preserving the intricate web of life that sustains our planet. Healthy ecosystems, thriving with diverse plant and animal species, act as a natural buffer against climate change.
IAR’s conservation programme, IARconserves, embraces a holistic, one-health approach. By adopting community-centric, grass-roots strategies, the outcomes positively impact people, wildlife and the environment. Through IARconserves, we have improved the health and prosperity of forest edge communities; in turn, this has reduced the environmental impact of human activity.
By conserving wildlife and their habitats, forests are protected, ensuring that millions of tonnes of carbon remain stored in the flora and deep peat below.
As we approach COP28, the call to ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table’ becomes more urgent. The success of this campaign hinges on collective action – individuals, communities, and nations coming together to advocate for a more sustainable and inclusive approach to climate discussions.
It is imperative that the international community recognises the inextricable link between climate change, biodiversity loss, and human health. Conservation efforts must be elevated on the global agenda, with a commitment to preserving wildlife, habitats, nature, and ecosystems. By doing so, we not only mitigate the impacts of climate change but also foster a world where both human and non-human inhabitants can thrive.
The urgency is palpable; the time for action is now. The ‘Give Wildlife A Seat At The Table’ campaign by International Animal Rescue calls for world leaders to consider the planet’s wildlife and biodiversity during COP28 seriously.
With a target of 10,000 signatures on the petition, the campaign aims to ensure that the voices of wildlife are heard in decisions that affect all of us – people, animals, forests, and the entirety of our interconnected ecosystems. You can find out more here.
Gavin Bruce is Chief Executive of International Animal Rescue
Unnikrishnan Nair, Head of Climate Change in the Economic, Youth and Sustainable Development Directorate. Credit: LinkedIn
by Umar Manzoor Shah (karnataka, india)
Inter Press Service
KARNATAKA, INDIA, Nov 23 (IPS) – With a focus on strengthening the resilience of small and vulnerable member countries, Unnikrishnan Nair says the Commonwealth Secretariat is working to align development and climate finance for maximum impact.
Nair, who is the Head of Climate Change in the Economic, Youth, and Sustainable Development Directorate, told IPS in an exclusive interview that to “build resilience and avoid the reversal of development gains due to climate change, climate action must be integrated into development projects so that the funding supports the necessary climate change outcomes.”
The Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH) has served as a “catalyst to help vulnerable countries access climate finance to enhance resilience. To date, USD 315.413 million of climate finance mobilised, including USD 8.1 million in co-financing for 79 approved projects (33 adaptation, 10 mitigation, and 36 cross-cutting) in 14 Commonwealth countries.”
Unnikrishnan Nair, Head of Climate Change in the Economic, Youth, and Sustainable Development Directorate
Here are excerpts from the interview:
IPS: Please give us an overview of the current climate change policies and strategies the Commonwealth Secretariat implements. How do these policies align with broader national and international climate goals?
Nair: The Climate Change Programme of the Commonwealth Secretariat focuses on strengthening the resilience of Commonwealth small and other vulnerable member countries to the negative impacts of climate change. It provides member countries with measures and support for mitigating and adapting to a changing climate. The programme facilitates the human and institutional capacity development of member countries to access public and private climate funding to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, including the implementation of their Nationally Determined Contributions. The Commonwealth Climate Change Programme advocates for international policies, mechanisms, and rules to be more responsive to the development needs of Small Islands Developing States, and other vulnerable countries. The Programme’s support is delivered through various mechanisms and partnerships, including:
Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub with a focus on increasing access to climate finance.
Commonwealth Call to Action on Living Lands aimed at accelerating climate action around land.
Commonwealth NDC Programme focuses on fast-tracking implementation and achievement of climate targets in line with the Paris Agreement.
Geospatial Programme targeted at the use of geospatial data and information for climate decisions.
Integration of Gender and youth for Climate Action, promoting inclusive climate action
Low Carbon & Climate Resilient Health Sector with special focus on Health sector adaptation and mitigation planning
IPS: In what ways does your directorate address the economic impacts of climate change? Are there specific measures to promote sustainable economic development in the face of climate-related challenges?
Nair: One of the major initiatives of the Commonwealth Climate Change Programme is to undertake the Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (CPEIR) to enable the consideration of climate change in the national development planning and budgeting process. This initiative applied the World Bank methodology for undertaking the CPEIR and was based on the data and information provided by the Ministry of Finance.
The CPEIR reviewed the overall climate policy adequacy in the country and analysed the strengths and weaknesses of the institutional set-ups, considering current climate change priorities and future challenges. The process also undertook an analytical review of climate expenditure and showed how the country had been allocating funds from public finance in dealing with the impacts of climate change. Initial results and recommendations were shared in a virtual validation workshop, in which a large set of participants from government institutions, the private sector, and development partners provided input, endorsed the study’s conclusions, and appreciated the recommendations.
IPS: How does your directorate engage with youth in the context of climate change and sustainable development? Are there initiatives to empower youth by advocating for and implementing climate-friendly practises?
Nair: Young people are key stakeholders in climate action, and as future decision-makers, they need to be fully engaged in climate processes, providing their perspectives, innovative ideas, and experiences that can help shape and accelerate climate action.
The integration of youth into climate change initiatives is fundamental to building resilience and developing robust climate mitigation and adaptation proposals.
The Secretariat has mandated advisers operating under the CCFAH to integrate youth considerations across all projects supported in-country to ensure that climate finance delivered in member states takes account of the needs of young people.
Commonwealth Youth Initiatives
Commonwealth Youth Climate Network (CYCN)
Commonwealth Youth Statement on Climate Change
Intergenerational Dialogue on Climate Change (held at COP)
Commonwealth Youth Development Index and Report, Climate Section
Enhancing Access to Finance for Youth in Green Entrepreneurship
Summer School on Climate Justice support with the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA)
Climate Finance Teach-in Session during the Global NDC Youth Engagement Forum
Internship Programme
IPS: How does your directorate integrate the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into its climate change and economic development initiatives? Can you highlight specific projects or programmes that contribute to multiple SDGs simultaneously?
Nair: While aligning NDCs and SDGs is important, it requires funding. Climate finance plays a crucial role in’ building back better,’ as adequate funding is vital to support climate action, resilience-building, and sustainable development efforts.
Equally, to build resilience and avoid the reversal of development gains due to climate change, climate action must be integrated into development projects so that the funding supports the necessary climate change outcomes. In other words, aligning development and climate finance is essential to maximising impact. Development projects should be able to access climate funding, and climate projects should access development funding.
The Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH) is a significant enabler. By deploying Commonwealth national, regional, and thematic climate finance advisers to support governments, the CCFAH serves as a catalyst to help vulnerable countries access climate finance to enhance resilience. To date, US$ 315.413 million of climate finance has been mobilised, including US$ 8.1 million in co-financing for 79 approved projects (33 adaptation, 10 mitigation, and 36 cross-cutting) in 14 Commonwealth countries.
Some CCFAH projects are linked to the Living Lands Charter: A Commonwealth Call to Action on Living Lands (CALL). This initiative supports the alignment of climate action and sustainable development by safeguarding global land resources and taking coordinated action to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation while promoting sustainable, climate-resilient land management and agriculture.
IPS: What roles do innovation and technology play in your directorate’s approach to achieving sustainable development goals and combating climate change? Are there specific technologies or innovations that have shown promise in your initiatives?
Nair: On the technology front, one of the most important initiatives is an innovative project based on a partnership between Fiji, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu and a consortium of international partners working together to support and build climate resilience and enhance decision-making using satellite remote sensing technology.
The Commonwealth Secretariat is the thematic lead on climate finance and provides technical assistance to the three countries in utilising the geospatial-based platforms for enhanced access to climate finance.
The project is designed to enhance capacities, introduce technological advancements (including artificial intelligence-based methods), and provide integrated solutions for decision-making related to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), climate resilience, environmental preservation, and food security.
IPS: How does your directorate measure the impact of its programmes and initiatives on climate change, economic development, and youth empowerment? Are there key performance indicators or metrics used to assess progress?
Nair: The programme, based on requirements, appoints external third parties to assess its performance and results through its relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, and sustainability, per the OECD Development Assistance Committee Guidelines. This is a formative evaluation of the programme, focusing on assessing the initial results, effectiveness of the programme’s processes, and lessons learned. The evaluation is also supported by case studies to illustrate examples of how the programme operates and to identify success factors and lessons learned.
IPS: How does your directorate contribute to building the capacity of individuals and communities to respond to climate change and engage in sustainable development? Are there specific training programmes or educational initiatives?
Nair: The Commonwealth Climate Change programme is focused on building the technical and institutional capacity of small and other vulnerable states to engage and navigate through the complex climate action landscape and to take action to address the long-term impacts of climate change. This is achieved by strengthening the technical and policy infrastructure in the country, thereby improving an enabling environment for attracting technical and financial support by devising long-term climate action plans and pipelining climate finance projects, policies, and institutions.
Under the Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub (CCFAH), rather than offering short-term consultation to countries, the project embeds qualified national advisers for a three-year period to support the country in all areas of climate finance. This embeds knowledge transfer formally through workshops, training, and continuous support in priority areas for the government. This generates a critical mass of national government officials and relevant institutions directly responsible for climate action who are capacitated to tackle various aspects of climate finance, including project development, gender mainstreaming, environmental and social governance, policy support, etc. This CCFAH ‘write shop’ approach to capacity building focused on learning by doing has proven to support the sustainability of outcomes. This approach also helps develop a critical mass of officials in government departments responsible for climate action.
IPS: What are your directorate’s major challenges in implementing climate change, economic, and sustainable development initiatives? Are there notable opportunities or innovations that could positively impact your work?
Nair: The Commonwealth Climate Change Programme is facing several challenges in implementing climate change, economic, and sustainable development initiatives. The prominent three are:
Diverse Member States: The Commonwealth comprises countries with diverse economic structures, levels of development, and vulnerabilities to climate change. Tailoring initiatives to suit each member state’s specific needs and capacities is a complex task, requiring flexibility and inclusivity in programme design and implementation.
Limited Resources: Resource constraints hinder the ability of the programme to invest in comprehensive climate change and sustainable development initiatives. Mobilising adequate financial resources to support these programmes, especially for smaller and less economically developed nations, is a persistent challenge.
Capacity Building: Enhancing the capacity of member states to plan, implement, and monitor climate change initiatives is crucial. Many countries within the Commonwealth lack the technical expertise and institutional capacity needed to carry out these programmes, necessitating targeted capacity-building efforts.
IPS: How does your directorate collaborate on climate change and sustainable development issues with international organisations and other countries? Are there ongoing partnerships that have been particularly fruitful?
Nair: The Commonwealth Climate Change Programme actively collaborates with international organisations and other countries to address pressing climate challenges. Through diplomatic channels and multilateral forums, the programme fosters partnerships that transcend borders, facilitating the exchange of knowledge, expertise, and best practises in the realms of climate change and sustainable development. This collaboration involves joint technical initiatives, capacity-building programmes, and sharing best practises aimed at inclusive climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies in line with national sustainability practises. By participating in international dialogues and contributing to global initiatives, the programme strives to create a cohesive and coordinated approach to tackle the complex and interconnected issues of climate change and sustainable development, recognising that only through unified efforts can we effectively address the shared challenges facing our planet.
Some of the very fruitful partnerships under the Commonwealth climate change programme are with the following:
Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), Government of the United Kingdom
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR)
Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation)
NDC Partnership
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
World Health Organization
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
We face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat. Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS
Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (new york)
Inter Press Service
NEW YORK, Nov 22 (IPS) – Climate change has been a source of concern among the international community since the 1970s. Yet, almost fifty years since the issue was first raised in international diplomatic circles by prominent scientists, the situation continues to deteriorate, with rises in temperatures and extreme weather causing ever-magnifying problems around the world.
What has the global community done to date to deal with what many consider an existential threat to humanity’s future? And what needs to happen next in the UN negotiations as diplomats and other key stakeholders head to Dubai for COP28? This briefing provides a short history of global cooperation to date, then looks towards Dubai and beyond for what needs to happen next.
We argue that, although much more has been done to date than many give the UN and global community credit for, we face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat.
A Brief History of the International Community’s Response to Climate Change
The United Nations first began to set out the case for action on climate change in the late 1970s, with the First World Climate Conference in 1979. Sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it brought together scientists from various disciplines to explore the issue.
This led in 1988 to the establishment by the WMO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which took scientific consideration of climate change to a new level. The research-based warnings presented by the IPCC strengthened the case for action (and continue to do so today).
Initially, a Second World Climate Conference was held in 1990 and this set the agenda for negotiations on a global treaty. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed by the UN General Assembly in time for the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The agreement entered into force in March 1994 when 50 countries had ratified the convention through their legislatures. It now has 198 Parties.
The UNFCCC is sometimes criticized for being weak or ineffective. However, as a “framework” convention, it should really be considered a foundation or starting-point for further agreements that build upon it. In this respect, it models earlier agreements, including the ones that have so successfully tackled the ozone crisis.
The Vienna Convention, which was the first treaty on ozone, was itself quite limited. However, subsequent agreements, including the Montreal Protocol, built a strong and ultimately successful structure upon this early foundation.
Furthermore, the UNFCCC does include some strong and important concepts and commitments, including the need to limit climate change caused by humans to a level that is not dangerous. It also recognizes that some countries are better placed than others to do this work, and that many, such as those in the Global South, will need support and assistance.
The UNFCCC led rapidly to the Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed in December 1997. It, too, recognized the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” between different groups of countries, with developed countries to take the lead and carry the most responsibility for emissions in the atmosphere.
The Kyoto Protocol was innovative in several ways.
First, it included specific targets for many countries from the Global North. While not all governments took these as seriously as they might, in many countries it started an ongoing and detailed policy response from governments, including greater investment in renewable energy and other policy shifts to begin to decouple economic growth from the growth in fossil fuel emissions.
These efforts have enjoyed some success, and per capita emissions have dropped in many industrialized countries even as rising populations and economic growth elsewhere mean global emissions have continued to increase overall.
What’s more, the Kyoto Protocol provided a catalyst for private sector engagement. Government policies that encouraged corporate investment in new technologies, emissions trading, and other innovations began to make the climate response look more like a “whole-of-society” effort than one involving sequestered government departments.
However, as the economies of the Global South grew and prospered in the 2000s, it was clear that Kyoto, with its focus squarely on actions in the Global North, would not be enough.
Hopes were high that the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 would replace the Kyoto Protocol with a more ambitious approach that would come into effect from 2012.
Ultimately, it failed in its immediate goal of securing a new, legally binding agreement. However, as we note in our book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy (Routledge, 2022), although the meeting did not secure a new deal, President Obama did manage to float some new concepts in a weakened outcome known as the Copenhagen Accord. The ideas it contained included a $100 billion climate fund to help the Global South and, even more significantly, a need for all countries to be a part of the solution to climate change.
In 2015, the seeds sown at the disappointing meeting in Copenhagen finally bore fruit. The Paris Agreement took on the ambitious aim of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. It requires countries to take on targets and to report back to the UN on progress.
While some criticized these targets for being voluntary rather than mandatory (as was the case with Kyoto), many praised the fact that the commitments were to be taken on by all countries. What’s more, the Paris Agreement provided flexibility so countries could take on what was best fitted to their particular circumstances and level of economic development. This made it possible for all countries to agree on the way forward, since it continued to respect nations’ sovereignty rather than trying to impose specific emissions targets on them.
One sign that Paris has had a positive impact has been forecasts for future global temperature rise by the end of the century. Before 2015, various predictions based on emissions trends suggested rises of upwards of 4, 5, and 6 Celsius, or even higher.
This would be utterly catastrophic for humanity. Today, forecasts trend somewhere between 1.8C-3C, depending on the assumptions in the model. To be clear, these are still very bleak numbers. They signify likely outcomes that are highly dangerous and may even be calamitous. But it does show an encouraging trend.
One of the family photos taken after the laborious end of the 26th climate summit in Glasgow, which closed a day later than scheduled with a Climate Pact described as falling short by even the most optimistic, lacking important decisions to combat the crisis and without directly confronting fossil fuels, the cause of the emergency. CREDIT: UNFCCC
The next significant UN climate conference was COP26 in Glasgow. Held in 2021 as the world was still reeling from the COVID pandemic, the outcome from COP26 included the Glasgow Climate Pact, which sought to promote the reduced use of coal and other sources of emissions.
Glasgow also witnessed the first review of countries’ voluntary commitments under Paris (known in UN-speak as “Nationally Determined Contributions”). Glasgow also promoted the idea of ‘coalitions of the willing’ to advance ideas that might not have enough support to find consensus among all 198 countries that belonged to the UNFCCC, but that were nevertheless considered by some to be worth pursuing.
In spite of some skepticism at the time, some of these coalitions do promise positive results. For instance, the Methane Pledge now has 111 countries committing to a 30% reduction in methane on 2020 levels by 2030. If countries honor their promises, this could bring down climate projections by 0.2C by 2050.
Another coalition of the willing was the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which brought commitments from over 650 global financial institutions from banking, asset owners and managers, insurers and financial service providers committing to support the transition to net zero. Again, promises only matter if they are kept. However, if they are honored, then the impact of GFANZ will be significant.
In 2022, the UN Climate Conference, COP27, was held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. There, the major breakthrough was the agreement on the need for a fund to help developing countries suffering loss and damage caused by climate change. Such a fund has long been a rallying cry for negotiators from the Global South, as well as their allies.
For a meeting billed as the “implementation COP” where climate action was taken to another level, the news on mitigation and finance was therefore disappointing. Credit: Shutterstock
What Next? Looking towards COP28 in Dubai
COP28 is being held against a complicated global backdrop. With conflict and turmoil in Europe and the Middle East, tension among the great powers and economic uncertainty around the world, how realistic can our ambitions be for COP28 and what does it need to deliver for us to consider it a success?
Progress on Loss and Damage
The run-up to COP28 in Dubai has seen significant work by a transitional committee deliberating on the infrastructure of a future Loss and Damage Fund. It was meant to have three meetings between the COPs and ultimately needed more before a compromise was found on where such a fund might be situated. In the end, the agreement was for the World Bank to act as an “interim” host for four years.
The decision to set up a similar governance structure to the Green Climate Fund has perhaps given it a heavy bureaucracy, which might be a problem in the future. However, the forward momentum and growing certainty on how it will be organized has encouraged a number of countries to put funds into the nascent Loss and Damage Fund. This includes the European Union, which is pledging “substantial” contributions. Meanwhile, the host country, UAE, is looking at making a contribution, The US has also said it would put “several millions into the fund”. While modest in size, it is at least a start.
A key issue in Dubai will be who will get the money. The agreement at COP27 was to assist “developing nations, especially those that are particularly vulnerable”.
The EU is suggesting this means the least developed countries and small island developing states. Developing countries have so far resisted reducing it to those groups. Some point to situations such as the terrible floods in Pakistan before COP27 as an example of how funds might be allocated. Pakistan is neither a least developed country nor an island state. Does that mean it would not have been eligible had such a fund existed at the time, in spite of its clear and obvious need?
In spite of these kind of uncertainties, COP28 is expected to advance work on the Loss and Damage Fund. Failure to do so would be judged harshly, given recent momentum.
Beyond Loss and Damage – Boosting Funding
The commitment proposed back in Copenhagen in 2009 for US$100 billion a year for climate finance by 2020 was not achieved until 2022. In part, the blame for this can be placed on COVID 19, which caused disruption in aid and climate budgets, among many other problems.
While the $100 billion goal has now been attained, it is important to remember that this was intended as a floor and not a ceiling. Furthermore, much of the money is being distributed as loans rather than grants. As a consequence, it has actually had a negative impact on the indebtedness of some least developed countries.
The reality is that we need trillions, not billions, to address climate change and that government aid will not be enough. As a reference point, Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a new high of US$204 billion in 2022. While welcome, this is wholly inadequate for the climate crisis, for which funding should be additional to ODA in any case.
COP28 marks a staging post on the path to developing a new collective quantified goal on climate finance, which is slated to be agreed in 2024. In Dubai there will be a High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on 3 December. This discussion should send a strong signal that any new goal in 2024 will be ambitious, innovative, and at a much higher level than in the past. Anything less will invite criticisms that COP28 was a missed opportunity.
Looking Back to Leap Forward?
A major component of the talks at COP28 will be what insiders call the “global stocktake”. Held every five years, it presents delegates with an opportunity to assess their collective progress in delivering on the Paris Agreement. How has the world performed in terms of climate mitigation, adaptation, and implementation?
Participants in this year’s stocktake have before them the worrying fact that the world is already nudging close to the 1.5C warming limit governments pledged to stay within. Optimists are hoping COP28 catalyzes the beginning of more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions in the next two years, and a strong collective undertaking by governments to redouble their efforts.
The signs so far are not positive. Since COP27, only 20 countries have increased their pledges, including Egypt, Mexico, Norway, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.
While this should be welcomed, none of the major emitters has stepped forward. Recently, the head of the UN’s climate office, Simon Stiell, labeled efforts as “baby steps” rather than the “bold strides” that are needed. If COP28 does not yield a satisfactory outcome on this topic, many are likely to see it as a missed opportunity, or even as a failure. At the very least, major emitters should step up at COP28 and indicate that they will be announcing much more ambitious goals sooner than later.
A Host of Problems?
In recent months, there has been considerable criticism of the incoming UAE Presidency. Many media commentators have asked why an OPEC member should be hosting a climate COP? Does this not send a bad signal, they ask?
Many of these talking heads may not be aware that UN Climate Summits are rotated around the five UN regions, and that this was Asia’s turn to host. Furthermore, there was little appetite from other governments in the region to host it.
Critics have also pointed out that the President of COP28 will be Sultan Al Jaber, who has a history in the fossil-fuel industry. The counter-argument is that he has also been prominent in promoting the UAE’s work on renewable energy. He was the founding CEO and is the current Chair of Masdar, a UAE-owned renewable energy company. As we write this article, the United Arab Emirates has launched the Al Dhafra solar farm. It is now the world’s largest single-site solar farm, powering 200,000 homes.
Rather than engaging in these debates, we would argue that the host government should be judged on whether COP28 is a success. The UAE Presidency has identified its own priorities where they will push for major progress: mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, innovating the UN process by engaging more with the private sector, and pushing for greater inclusion, accountability and transparency.
These are worthy goals and it should therefore be possible to judge them based on these topics once the meeting ends. If they deliver, it will show that a fossil fuel producer is capable of promoting progress on climate change. If it does not, then the UAE will certainly come in for criticism.
It is also worth noting that, although the UAE is a prominent fossil fuel producer, many previous hosts have also been in the same camp, even if some are less well known for this. For instance, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia have all hosted COPs in the past (Poland has actually hosted three), and yet all four of these countries line up among the world’s top ten coal producing countries.
Meanwhile, Qatar, another former host, is a major oil and gas producer. Should they not have hosted the COPs? Again, we feel hosts should be judged by the results they achieve.
Ramping Up the Carbon Market
The Paris Agreement included use of carbon markets to reach our emissions targets. A rulebook for this was largely completed at Glasgow in 2021. This should open the door to many billions of dollars of investments (in 2021 it was $2 billion). The rules set at Glasgow should help ensure that offsets are of high “quality” (meaning they genuinely help reduce and offset emissions).
COP28 will provide an opportunity to assess early progress as we move into an implementation phase. Are the markets ramping up? Who is using them, and how can we encourage them to grow? COP28 needs to address these issues.
Global Goal on Adaptation
The world is so far down the climate change path that adapting to its impact is already happening and will be unavoidable in future. A review under what is known as the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme (GlaSS) will be presented at COP28, and clear targets, indicators, and financing options are expected by COP29.
There was also a commitment in Glasgow to double adaptation funding by 2025. If this happened, it would raise the amount to US$40 billion annually. Again, COP28 provides an opportunity to give some early signals this goal will be achieved.
Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero
Outside the government negotiations, observers at COP28 will also be looking for progress by other stakeholders. For instance, the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero referred to earlier represents two-fifths of the world’s financial assets, $130 trillion, under the management of banks, insurers and pension funds that have signed up to 2050 net-zero goals, including limiting global warming to 1.5C. The potential of such a group is enormous.
At COP28, this group should report back on progress, and other stakeholders should be ready to hold it to account to ensure these goals are real and are being actively pursued, rather than just being empty promises.
Judging Dubai
COP28 has a number of key outcomes it needs to deliver, as well as being an important stepping stone to further COPs that will also have to deliver specific outcomes that are ambitious and commensurate with the scale of the challenge we face.
If delegates in Dubai are to declare success, they will need to finalize the Loss and Damage Fund, advance the Goal Global on Adaptation, and pack a real punch with the Global Stocktake, with concrete outcomes to help us limit global temperature rise. Do this, and COP28 stands a good chance of being hailed a success. Fail to deliver and observers will view it rightly as a missed opportunity not just for diplomacy, but in guiding us towards a more sustainable future.
Felix Dodds and Chris Spence are co-editors of the recent book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge Press, 2022). It includes chapters on the climate negotiations held in Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015). Felix is also Director, Multilateral Affairs. Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service (RMWSSS) at Arizona State University
References
UNFCCC (2023) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report by the secretariathttps://unfccc.int/documents/632334
Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram (kuala lumpur, malaysia)
Inter Press Service
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Nov 22 (IPS) – In recent decades, failure to sustain economic progress has been blamed on a supposed middle-income country (MIC) trap. Such blaming obscures as much as it supposedly explains.
The ‘middle-income trap’ fable began as a World Bank story about why upper MICs in Latin America failed to become high-income countries (HICs) after pursuing policies required or prescribed by the Bretton Woods institutions.
Bretton Woods’ Frankenstein
The 1944 Bretton Woods rules-based international monetary system ended in August 1971 when President Richard Nixon unilaterally repudiated US obligations. This happened after the US Treasury had borrowed heavily from the rest of the world from the 1960s.
Jomo Kwame SundaramThe US government’s ‘exorbitant privilege’ of ‘spending well beyond its means’ has continued despite the resulting international monetary ‘non-system’. Continuing acceptance of the US dollar, or ‘greenback’, as the virtual world currency has enabled its Treasury to borrow internationally at low cost.
This has enabled the US to maintain massive trade and current account deficits, and a military presence in much of the world, despite its huge, but still growing fiscal and trade deficits. The US exorbitant privilege seems to have been sustained by its ‘soft power’ and unassailable military superiority.
Facing ‘stagflation’ – economic stagnation with inflation – US Fed chair Paul Volcker raised interest rates sharply from 1980. This soon killed US inflation, but also Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ legacy from the 1930s.
With inflation high, real interest rates seemed low despite high nominal interest rates in the developing world. With growth high in the global South in the 1970s, borrowing to sustain investments, even from abroad, remained attractive.
But US interest rate hikes soon triggered fiscal and sovereign debt crises in many countries: Poland in 1981 was followed by various Latin American, African and other developing economies.
Washington Consensus
Facing rising interest rates, many governments could no longer service accumulated debt, let alone borrow to invest more. Instead, they had to pursue contractionary monetary and fiscal policies domestically, causing economic stagnation.
With Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan demanding such macroeconomic policies, the Washington-based Bretton Woods institutions soon prescribed them, ending the post-Second World War Keynesian ‘Golden Age’.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded contractionary stabilisation policies to qualify for short-term credit facilities. World Bank structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) typically required economic liberalisation and privatisation for longer-term financing.
The Bank also advocated more export-orientation and foreign investment. When paid by Japan’s government, the Bank celebrated its post-war industrial boom as a ‘miracle’, a new model for emulation. But this soon ended with its demise due to the US-demanded overvalued yen and its ill-advised financial ‘Big Bang’.
Latin American conundrum
Latin American and other vulnerable economies lost over a decade from the 1980s while African economies lost a quarter century. Low-interest official Japanese credit initially mainly went to Southeast Asia, while South Asia took on less foreign debt.
Stabilisation and SAP conditionalities undermined Latin America’s modest industrialisation, which also prevented the region from recovering strongly until the new century. But their economies had not been sufficiently liberalised for ‘neoliberals’ despite turning more to foreign trade and investment from the 1980s.
Prosperous economies became more protectionist, especially after the 2008 global financial crisis. But developing countries were told to open up even more despite shrinking export markets.
But with globalisation over, even East Asia can no longer rely on export growth. Also, it is difficult to turn away from export-oriented production, especially as earlier trade deal commitments cannot be unilaterally repudiated.
In many prosperous economies, workers captured some of their productivity gains. But the oft-heard claim that productivity increases lag behind wage rises usually serves employers. In most ‘labour-surplus’ developing countries, wages remain low.
As in South America early this century, progressive redistribution has often accelerated, rather than subverted growth. Common claims that such redistribution is bad for growth must be critically reconsidered. After all, progressive redistribution sustained growth in post-war Europe.
Breaking out of the trap
The ‘middle-income trap’ argument claims MICs cannot sustain rapid economic progress. Supposed reasons vary with policy and ideological biases, as ostensible structural, cultural, political, behavioural or governance causes typically reflect such prejudices.
Recent narratives have proclaimed the need to ‘graduate’ from secondary to tertiary economic activities. Modern services growth is supposedly needed to sustain progress to become HICs.
Another popular argument has been that progressive redistribution has subverted growth. But it is now uncontroversial that progressive redistribution was crucial for sustaining growth in post-war Europe.
Discretionary state powers have undoubtedly been abused for political patronage and self-aggrandisement. Clientelism plagues many societies, undermining needed state interventions. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
History suggests the best way to overcome the ‘middle income trap’ would be to implement appropriate investment and technology policies. Selective policies are needed to promote growth, not only of manufacturing, but also of high-end services, as well as safe, nutritious and affordable food supplies.
But all this is not going to happen spontaneously. Reforms need to be deliberately elaborated and sequenced through various interventions as part of well-designed, coherent and sustained initiatives.
Christine Nalienya, a farmer in western Kenya, winnowing beans outside her home. Bean farmers confront various challenges, yet as smallholder farmers, they receive little support. Credit: Robert Kibet/IPS
by Robert Kibet
Inter Press Service
Nov 22 (IPS) – In a groundbreaking development, indigenous farmer communities are poised to bring the spotlight onto food systems at the upcoming UN Climate Conference (COP28) in Dubai.
Recent research revealing that food systems contribute to roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions has spurred a compelling call to action.
Furthermore, as one-third of the world’s food goes to waste, an alarming over 700 million people grapple with hunger. At the same time, a staggering 3 billion individuals cannot access a nutritious diet. This issue is poised to worsen due to the adverse effects of extreme weather events and biodiversity loss on global agriculture.
After years of relative neglect in global climate negotiations, food systems have finally taken center stage at COP28.
Estrella Penunia, the Secretary General of the Asian Farmers’ Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA), said at a conference held ahead of World Food Day that while approximately 4 percent of climate financing is allocated to agriculture, a mere 1.7 percent reaches family farmers.
“We want to play the role of climate stewards in our farms, fisheries, and forests because we know the solutions on how to transition to sustainable, inclusive, just, and healthy food systems to regenerative and agricultural approaches,” Penunia told the virtual press conference.
What’s more, the COP28 event will set a precedent by dedicating a thematic day to food systems on December 10. Expectations run high for farmers, businesses, civil society, and other stakeholders to deliver ambitious announcements and rallying calls to further advance the significance of food systems in the current year.
According to Penunia, governments, development partners, the private sector, and civil society organizations must unite to support indigenous farmers. She emphasized the need for favorable policies and programs to expand and enhance their work and for sufficient financing to be directed toward agriculture.
“Direct financing for small-scale family farmers is key to empowering their organizations and cooperatives as effective change agents. The aim is to enable millions of family farmers to directly contribute solutions,” said Penunia.
Stakeholders are concerned that the food systems agenda has been inadequately represented in global climate discussions, but there is now a growing recognition of the substantial impact of agricultural emissions, including methane and carbon dioxide, on the climate.
David Nabarro, the strategic director at the 4 SD Foundation, emphasized that while the contribution of agriculture and food to greenhouse gas emissions has been known for some time, there is now widespread recognition that it warrants serious attention. Moreover, climate change challenges have intensified over the past few years, with increasing reports from farmers about the near impossibility of dealing with its effects.
Nabarro, also a senior advisor to the COP28 Food Systems team, underscored the significance of the upcoming COP28 in Dubai. “It places the issue squarely on the table despite the difficulties involved and brings together various groups. World leaders understand the imperative of addressing all sources of emissions and working with diverse companies and countries to effect meaningful change.”
Gonzalo Munoz, a former high-level champion for COP25 and lead on the COP28 Non-State Actors Agenda for Food Systems on behalf of the UN Climate Champions, stressed the need to demonstrate a sense of urgency and the imperative of scaling up action.
“This call to action endorses the Emirates Declaration and backs its implementation, developed in consultation with non-state actors. Consequently, at COP28, there will be a launch of a non-state actor call to action aimed at transforming food systems for the benefit of people, nature, and climate,” said Gonzalo.
This initiative also underscores the critical need to respect and value the traditional knowledge held by indigenous people and the local knowledge possessed by farmers, fishers, and other food producers.
In the local context, respecting and valuing the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local farmers, fishers, ranchers, and pastoralists is vital. it is equally important to engage women and youth in climate negotiations and other processes at all levels, as Rebecca Brooks, a high-level climate champion, emphasized.
“Strengthening the capacity of organizations representing these groups and providing appropriate resources, incentives, and technical support is essential,” Brooks, also the pillar lead for the non-state actors pillar of the COP28 Food Systems and Agriculture Agenda, told the press conference.
Dr Tim Benton, the Research Director of the Environment and Society Program at Chatham House, emphasized the pivotal role of transforming the food system in addressing the climate crisis, biodiversity loss, pollution, human health, and well-being.
He raised the question of how to make it profitable for farmers to adopt more sustainable, resilient practices without the pressures often stemming from globalized systems to maximize yield at any cost.
Benton also acknowledged the substantial challenges facing smallholder farmers in many parts of the global south, particularly in the middle latitudes.
“The challenges for smallholder farmers in many parts of the global south, and particularly the middle latitudes of the world, are huge,” he reiterated.
Regarding potential trade-offs, Benton recognized that there are real trade-offs, such as balancing biodiversity conservation, nutrition, farmer livelihoods, and greenhouse gas emissions. The complex task is to find solutions that address these trade-offs effectively.
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 21 (IPS) – Ukraine, the Caucasus and the Middle East. The latest eruptions of violence mark the end of Pax Americana. The rise of new powers is shifting the global balance of power. Whether tomorrow’s world will be bipolar or multipolar still remains to be seen.
If the Sino-American system rivalry escalates into a new Cold War, we could see a bipolar order of competing blocs becoming reality once again. Should the remaining centres of power manage to retain their strategic autonomy, however, tomorrow’s world is likely to remain a multipolar one.
This global development has fundamental consequences for the world order. Will the erosion of the hegemony of Western liberal democracies mean an end to the liberal world order? Can the multilateral institutions co-founded by the United States, along with their normative foundations, survive if the ‘world’s policeman’ no longer has either the power or the will to guarantee them?
Will universal institutions that are open to all states and whose norms are binding for everyone still be around in the future? To put it even more pointedly, can the universal nature of human rights survive in a multipolar world where civilisations with different values compete against one another?
Marc SaxerThe rise of illiberal particularism
Let us take a look at the ideological dimension of the struggle for tomorrow’s world order. The liberal order is being challenged both domestically and globally by competing concepts of order. In the West, liberal universalism is coming under pressure from different forms of illiberal particularism.
The far right is dismantling the rule of law and transforming liberal republics with strong minority rights into illiberal majority democracies. Their aim is to limit democratic participation and the blessings of the welfare state to a nativist majority. As the ‘America First’ and the Brexit campaigns show, right-wing populists try to break free from the chains of international law which impede their goal of illiberal transformation of the state and society.
Yet, the identitarian left is no stranger to particularistic tribalism either. The incitement of people with different skin colors, origins, religions or sexual identities against one another undermines the egalitarian ethos of the republic. Attempts to limit dissenters’ freedom of speech, to culturally relativize infringements of the law or to bypass the parliamentary system by means of political commissars arise from an illiberal spirit. At the end of the day, selective condemnation of human rights violations makes a mockery of the universalist ideas of equal rights for all.
If these forms of particularism are allowed to affect state policy, the West’s commitment to universal norms is undermined. It is true that China and Russia instrumentalize the Global South’s criticism of the West’s double standards for their own ends. But it was the West itself that damaged its own moral authority by breaching international law in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
This loss of legitimacy and relative loss of power weakens the West’s ability to assert itself. Wherever isolationist or nationalist forces come to power, there is also a lack of political will to advocate for international law and human rights around the world. This is not a good omen for the future of the liberal world order and its universal fundamental values.
Russia and China
The Global South’s criticism of the neo-conservative spread of democracy by force of arms points out that there have always been proponents of an American Empire in Washington, and indeed there still are to this day. In Russia and China, in particular, defensive and offensive varieties of neo-imperial concepts of order are gaining attention.
On the defensive side, Russia and China are calling for the non-intervention of the liberal West in their civilizations’ internal matters. On the offensive side, with recourse to their imperial history, they are laying claim to a position as an independent power center in a hierarchically organized world order.
Russia has ideologically disguised its attempt to use armed force to create an exclusive sphere of influence by drawing a distinction between a vital Eurasian and decadent Western civilization. Ironically, these neo-imperial fantasies are especially popular in nationalist circles in the ‘decadent West’. Perhaps the renewed popularity of the Huntington thesis of a ‘clash of civilizations’ stems from the particularistic yearning to sort a chaotic world into tribes made up of ‘people who are like us’ and ‘people who are not’.
China, on the other hand, promotes, with reference to its millennia-old high culture, the idea that civilizations can live in harmony if their own cultures and traditions are respected. Instead of the universality of human rights, Beijing’s ‘Global Civilization Initiative’ talks about ‘common values of humanity’, which every culture must interpret with respect for their ‘own conditions and unique features’.
Within the United Nations framework, China advocates its own interpretation, which places the right to economic and social development above political and civil rights. Philosopher Zhao Tingyang re-introduces the ancient Tianxia system (‘all under heaven’) as a normative superstructure for a world order with Chinese characteristics. Critics worry that all these rediscoveries of concepts from China’s imperial history conceal an attempt to justify the hegemony of the old and new Middle Kingdom in Asia.
China’s attempts to undermine the equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors elicit just as much outrage as the West’s humanitarian interventions, which critics castigate as cynical ploys to use universal rights as a pretext to interfere in a country’s domestic affairs. In the Global South, the Westphalian principles enshrined in the UN Charter are positioned against the encroachment by imperial and liberal ideas of order.
Instead of a hierarchical order, in which the vassal states group around imperial poles, they insist that all sovereign nation-states are equal under international law in spite of asymmetries of size and power. The principle of territorial integrity aims to put a stop to violent attacks from the imperial centers.
On the other hand, the principle of non-interference is upheld against the humanitarian interventions of the liberal internationalists and the structural adjustment programmes of global governance institutions. This resentment against external interference is the reason why the Western narrative of systemic rivalry between democracy and autocracy finds so little resonance in the Global South.
Finding consensus in a multipolar world
Since its foundation in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the international system of states has been designed without central authority. The US hegemon selectively performing the role of the ‘world’s policeman’ after the end of the Cold War was always only a poor substitute.
In the future, Washington is unlikely to have either the will or power to sanction violations of universal norms. The crucial question is therefore whether, in a multipolar and thus normatively pluralistic world, in which civilizations with different values and historical experiences, a unilateralist minimum consensus can be formed based purely on voluntarism.
Which concept of order eventually prevails will depend on the balance of power in the struggle for tomorrow’s world order. If the West wants to maintain a liberal order, it will have to refrain from the intrusions of humanitarian interventionism, which are perceived as imperialist, and double standards with regard to the application of universal norms.
This does not mean abandoning the fundamental values of democracy and human rights, but it does mean refraining from disseminating those values by means of armed force and economic coercion. Whether or not the West can bring itself to implement this change, of course, will depend in particular on the outcome of the internal conflict between the illiberal particularists and liberal universalists.
From a progressive point of view, the universalist commitment to equal rights for all is the most effective antidote to the endless zero-sum games between identitarian tribes, which are causing society as a whole to stagnate.
To prevent a global clash of civilizations, where every culture relativises the rules of coexistence, we need to stand by universalist norms. If the norms currently underpinning the world order, with its Christian and natural law connotations, are no longer acceptable for everyone, an equal dialogue between the civilizations is required to work out which universal principles can be agreed on instead.
The concern is, however, that a reasoned debate about the West’s enlightened self-interest in the preservation of an international order rooted in universally applicable norms is in danger of being drowned out by the din of morally charged culture wars.
Advocates of a concert of the great powers remind us that respect of the superpowers’ exclusive zones of influence prevented the Cold War from escalating into a hot war (for instance during the Cuban Missile Crisis). The price of this relative stability in the imperial centers is, however, never-ending proxy wars on the periphery. The rejection of neo-imperialist concepts of order also feeds off the reluctance of the overwhelming majority of states to kowtow to the dominance of one pole.
Large parts of the Global South – including important voices in China and Eastern Europe – advocate for the renaissance of a Westphalian order of equal and sovereign states. If the West lacks the political will and the power to preserve the liberal order, maintaining peaceful coexistence based on the UN Charter’s principles of equality, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, may just be the best of all worse worlds.
Marc Saxer coordinates the regional work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in the Asia Pacific. Previously, he led the FES offices in India and Thailand and headed the FES Asia Pacific department.
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS)-Journal published by the International Political Analysis Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin
Opinion by Carel du Marchie Sarvaas (brussels, belgium)
Inter Press Service
BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 21 (IPS) – The recent downturn in sales of alternative meat products is only the latest evidence that the world is unlikely to give up animal protein completely in the long run.
In fact, all forecasts suggest global consumption of meat, milk, fish and eggs will continue to rise, with some parts of the world relying on animal agriculture to make up dire protein deficiencies and meet nutrition needs.
With production expected to grow, governments and global bodies must support livestock sector efforts to become increasingly sustainable and keep climate action on track.
Achieving net zero emissions while allowing for an upward trend in meat production and consumption relies on making wholesale efficiency gains, and this starts with the net positive step of improving animal health.
Emissions from the livestock sector are divided between those generated directly through the digestive processes of animals, and those produced indirectly through the provision of feed, land, water, medicine, transportation, and processing. Healthier animals are associated with lower levels of both direct and indirect emissions.
Reducing the spread of animal disease, improving fertility and breeding, and optimising livestock feed are all proven ways to meet rising demand while supporting climate goals. It is why the UN has urged nations to make “improved animal health…one of the key action points to reduce GHG emissions.”
And with additional benefits for improved animal welfare and human health, veterinary interventions offer only positive returns as part of national climate strategies, regardless of the social, political and environmental context.
Mounting evidence demonstrates a strong correlation between livestock disease and emissions from animal agriculture. Diseases drive up emissions by undermining productivity, causing more wastage, and requiring more resources to maintain production levels.
When animals fall sick, they fail to reach target weights or reproduce, meaning farmers must invest in treating the animal while also making up for the shortfall in output. And diseases with high mortality levels, such as avian influenza, mean farmers need more animals to produce the same amount of meat, milk and eggs.
Recent modelling indicates that disease outbreaks in low-income countries that affect 20 per cent of cattle in a herd, for example, result in an estimated 60 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, vaccinating livestock against preventable diseases can both protect animals from infection and reduce the emissions attributed to each kilogram of meat or litre of milk. Reducing global disease levels by just 10 per cent through vaccination and other preventative health measures would bring down greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 800 million tonnes – equivalent to the annual emissions of close to 200 million people.
Expanding access to animal vaccines, especially in low-income countries, and endorsing livestock vaccination as part of public policy should therefore be on the agenda as a climate solution at the upcoming COP28 climate talks.
Similarly, improvements in livestock breeding can also reduce the environmental footprint of animal agriculture while increasing productivity.
Digital health monitoring innovations, such as smart tags, can make it easier for producers to accurately assess when cows are in heat and therefore more likely to successfully conceive. Not only does this minimise the resources and emissions involved in livestock breeding, but it also reduces the stress on the animal.
Meanwhile, genetic assessments found the “top” 25 per cent of cows produced 10 per cent fewer methane emissions and required five per cent less feed, while also producing 35 per cent more milk. Investing in more efficient livestock breeding programmes that harness the advantages of genetic testing would also support national climate plans without compromising food supplies.
Finally, optimising the quality and quantity of livestock feed has also been shown to reduce both direct and indirect emissions. Growing evidence indicates that dietary inhibitors and feed additives can effectively reduce the methane generated when cows and sheep digest food.
And the animal health sector has significantly advanced scientific understanding of the essential nutrition needed by livestock, which means farmers and veterinarians can create evidence-based feeding regimes that eliminate waste and overconsumption. This eases the burden on feed production, minimising emissions caused by sourcing and transporting animal feed, while ensuring the animals receive the nutrition they need to support healthy growth.
Improving the health, fertility and nutrition of farm animals has no downsides. And, as a cornerstone of the “One Health” concept of integrated planetary wellbeing, it is directly linked to the health of people and the environment.
For climate negotiators looking for practical, proven, and effective ways to curb emissions while meeting future food needs ahead of this year’s COP28, livestock health measures offer the elusive universal win-win.
Carel du Marchie Sarvaas is executive director of HealthforAnimals, the global animal health association
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 (IPS) – Jeanne Kirkpatrick, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, once made the distinction between “friendly” right-wing authoritarian regimes (which were mostly U.S. and Western allies) and “unfriendly” left-wing totalitarian dictatorships (which the U.S. abhorred).
Among the “dictators” the U.S. shunned in the 1970s and 80s were Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, Myanmar’s General Than Shwe, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Libya’s Mummar al-Qaddafi, Syria’s Hafez al-Assad and North Korea’s Kim IL-Sung.
At the same time, successive U.S. administrations cozied up to a rash of right-wing authoritarian regimes and family-run fiefdoms, mostly in South-East Asia, Latin America and particularly the Middle East.
These regimes were widely accused by human rights organizations of instituting emergency laws, detaining dissidents, cracking down on the press, torturing and executing political prisoners and rigging elections. (As a South-East Asian right-wing dictator once said: “I promised you I will give you the right to vote, but I did not say anything about counting those votes.”)
Kirkpatrick’s distinction between user-friendly right-wing regimes and unfriendly left-wing dictators prompted a response from former US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who shot back: “It seems to me that if you’re on the rack (and being tortured), it doesn’t make any difference if your torturer is right-handed or left-handed.”
But some of the Western nations have tried to politically separate “right-wing governments” from “left-wing governments” – the white-hatted good guys from the black-hatted bad guys, as in Hollywood movies of the wild West.
The strongest link between the United States and some of the oppressive Middle East regimes, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, is primarily military.
And Israel’s right-wing government, accused by Amnesty International, of human rights abuses and torture, is a coalition of seven political parties.
The ongoing devastating and one-side battle between Israel, a strong US ally, and the militant group Hamas has underlined a longstanding double standard on torture and human rights abuses.
The US rarely, if ever, is critical of Israel and exercises its political clout to veto any Security Council resolution condemning the Jewish state, as it did last week.
Dr. Simon Adams, President and CEO of the Center for Victims of Torture, told IPS: “Unfortunately, if history teaches us anything it is that most governments are capable of perpetrating torture, regardless of their political complexion.
Some democracies, he pointed out, try to justify torture in moments of extreme crisis, like the United States after 9/11, while dictatorships often commit torture as part of an industrial system of terror and control, like North Korea or the Assad regime in Syria.
“The sad, reality is that authoritarian governments that declare themselves as belonging to the far left or to the extreme right have often committed torture in the name of advancing their cause,” he noted.
“The more deluded a government is regarding the alleged purity of the ruling ideology, the more likely they are to perpetrate torture against dissidents and non-believers. What all authoritarian regimes have in common is disdain for universal human rights” declared Dr Adams.
Meanwhile, in a report released in early November, Amnesty International (AI), a leading human rights organization, says testimony from released detainees and human rights lawyers, as well as video footage and images illustrate some of the forms of torture and other ill-treatment prisoners have been subjected to by Israeli forces over the past four weeks.
These include severe beatings and humiliation of detainees, including by forcing them to keep their heads down, to kneel on the floor during inmate count, and to sing Israeli songs.
Heba Morayef, AI’s Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa says: “Over the last month we have witnessed a significant spike in Israel’s use of administrative detention — detention without charge or trial that can be renewed indefinitely — which was already at a 20-year high before the latest escalation in hostilities on 7 October.”
“Administrative detention is one of the key tools through which Israel has enforced its system of apartheid against Palestinians.
Testimonies and video evidence also point to numerous incidents of torture and other ill-treatment by Israeli forces including severe beatings and deliberate humiliation of Palestinians who are detained in dire conditions,” says Morayef.
The AI also says the summary killings and hostage-taking by Hamas and other armed groups on 7 October are war crimes and must be condemned as such, but Israeli authorities must not use these attacks to justify their own unlawful attacks and collective punishment of civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip and the use of torture, arbitrary detention and other violations of the rights of Palestinian prisoners.
“The prohibition against torture can never be suspended or derogated from, including – and especially — at times like these,” said AI.
Amnesty International says it has for decades documented widespread torture by Israeli authorities in places of detention across the West Bank.
However, over the past four weeks, videos and images have been shared widely online showing gruesome scenes of Israeli soldiers beating and humiliating Palestinians while detaining them blind-folded, stripped, with their hands tied, in a particularly chilling public display of torture and humiliation of Palestinian detainees.
In one image analyzed, by Amnesty International’s Crisis Evidence Lab, three Palestinian men,?blindfolded and stripped of their clothes can be seen beside a soldier, wearing a green olive uniform like those worn by the Israeli ground forces.
A Haaretz investigation published on 19 October found that the image was taken in Wadi al-Seeq, a village East of Ramallah, on 12 October. One of the three victims depicted in the photograph told Amnesty International that he had initially been held and beaten by settlers but two hours later an Israeli military jeep arrived:
“One of the Israeli officers who came, approached me and kicked me on my left side, then jumped on my head with his two legs pushing my face further into the dirt and then continued kicking me as I was head down, into the dirt, with my hands tied behind my back. He then got a knife and tore all of my clothes off except for my underwear and used part of my torn clothes to blindfold me”.
“The beating to the rest of my body did not stop, at one point he started jumping on my back – three or four times – while yelling ‘die, die you trash’ … in the end before this finally stopped, another officer urinated on my face and body while also yelling at us ‘to die’.”
Meanwhile, the UN Committee against Torture is currently holding its sessions, through November 24, during which it will examine Burundi, Costa Rica, Kiribati, Denmark, Egypt and Slovenia.
NEW YORK, Nov 20 (IPS) – In the midst of the Israel-Hamas conflagration, a significant anniversary at the United Nations –October 24th was the 78th year since its founding–went unremarked by the larger world. But the work of–and significant problems with–the UN continues. Among the problems is embedded institutional racism. It’s time that it be deeply addressed–not just by lip service.
The UN was founded in the aftermath of World War II to prevent the recurrence of such catastrophic events, with a commitment to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, the dignity, and worth of the human person” and, proclaiming “the right of everyone to enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”
Marking International Day on Eliminating Racial Discrimination on March 21, 2023, the UN Secretary-General António Guterres said, “Racial discrimination is a deeply damaging and pervasive abuse of human rights and human dignity that affects every country. It is one of the most destructive forces dividing societies, responsible for death and suffering on a grotesque scale throughout history. Today, racial discrimination and the legacies of enslavement and colonialism continue to ruin lives, marginalize communities and limit opportunities, preventing billions of people from achieving their full potential.”
There are visible contradictions in how the UN addresses racism and racial discrimination that go against the stipulations of the UN Charter. Some of this is attributable to systemic issues that date back to the founding of the UN.
The UN was established in 1945 as a solution for countries of European descent as they looked for a stable new international (and European) order. At that time, most parts of the world remained under European colonial domination, so the creation of the UN was led by those colonial and former enslaving powers.
The wave of decolonization between 1945 and 1960 changed the face of the world order as well as the World Body. The membership of the UN grew from 51 founding members in 1945 to 127 by 1970, and currently there are 193 member states. This aspect contributed towards altering the balance of power within the UN. These new member states were not from Europe and not white.
These new members persuaded the UN to embrace the change in the world order and brought new ideas to the General Assembly, the main deliberative body of the UN, which now practices the noble principle of “One Nation One Vote” and with five Regional Groups of member states – Africa, Asia – Pacific, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Western Europe and Other Group (including North America).
However, a similar transformation did not take place within the staffing of the organizations of the UN system.
In UN organizations, the staff experience or witness workplace discrimination largely on the basis of national origin, race, or skin color, according to the findings of several recent surveys. Most mentioned their lack of trust and confidence in the system, including existing recourse mechanisms and believed that the organization would offer no recourse if they complained about the racism they experienced.
The JIU review on racism and racial discrimination confirms that racism and racial discrimination are widespread throughout the system and the magnitude is high, based on evidence of prevalence, form, and effects of racism and racial discrimination. It further revealed that the “likelihood of experiencing racism and racial discrimination is higher” among black/African descent, Indigenous, South Asian and Middle Eastern/North African respondents.
More than half of the staff in the Professional and higher categories in the UN organizations are from Western countries or European descent. Hence, there is disproportionate representation among the five regional groupings. This disparity, directly and indirectly, contributes to the current organizational culture that enables racism and racial discrimination.
All organizations in the UN system should implement measures to reduce the proportion of the most highly represented regional groups and to increase the proportion of less represented regional groups, thereby reducing the overall imbalance among regional groups and making the UN organizations more representative of the populations they serve, including at decision-making levels.
Tackling systemic racism and racial discrimination within the UN system is not only an ethical issue but also a business issue. Racism and racial discrimination cause significant financial losses for all parties. Staff members suffer from loss of income, health, morale, enthusiasm and job satisfaction during their career span, while organizations suffer in terms of loss of time, resources, talent, committed staff, quality of work, timely delivery, productivity and reputation, among others.
It is therefore important to assess the tangible impacts of racism, in monetary terms, on staff, organizations and their capacities for programme delivery, especially the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. Such an exercise is critical if the UN organizations are genuinely committed to eliminating racism within.
The world urgently needs the UN leadership to fight systemic racism. Hence, the organizations of the UN system do not have time to spend another year on internal discussions and dialogues. Immediate implementation of the Secretary-General’s Strategic Action Plan on Addressing Racism and Promoting Dignity for All in the UN Secretariat would be a starting point, and similar action plans should follow urgently in all other UN organizations.
The time is now for the UN to act to fully eradicate racism and racial discrimination within its organizations.
Shihana Mohamed, a Sri Lankan national, is a founding member and one of the Coordinators of the United Nations Asia Network for Diversity and Inclusion (UN-ANDI) and a Public Voices Fellow with The OpEd Project and Equality Now.
UN-ANDI is a global network of like-minded Asians of the United Nations system who strive to promote a more diverse and inclusive culture and mindset within the UN system. UN-ANDI is the first-ever effort to bring together a diverse group of personnel (staff, retirees, consultants, interns, diplomats, and others) from Asia and the Pacific (nationality/origin/descent) in the UN system. Please contact via email at UnitedNationsA[email protected] to connect or/and collaborate with UN-ANDI.
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
Cookie
Duration
Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional
11 months
The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance
11 months
This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy
11 months
The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
