Voices from the Margins: Small-Scale Fishers Demand Rights, Recognition at COP16

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Conferences, COP16, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Food Security and Nutrition, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, Least Developed Countries, Migration & Refugees, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

COP16

Small-scale fishers on the coast of Kerela, India with a variety of fish and prawns. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

Small-scale fishers on the coast of Kerela, India with a variety of fish and prawns. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS

CALI, Columbia & DELHI, Nov 5 2024 (IPS) – Small-scale fishers play a fundamental role in feeding people—they use sustainable methods of catching and processing fish products and are a significant force in the employment and livelihoods of millions of people internationally—yet, until now, they have been excluded from climate and biodiversity conferences.

For the first time at COP 16, which closed in Cali, Colombia, on November 1, fishworkers, the most vulnerable small-scale fishers communicated that they seek active participation in decision-making processes that affect the oceans. It seems their message was heard because before the negotiations were suspended, parties adopted a historic decision to open the door for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to influence the global plan to halt the destruction of biodiversity.

Small-scale fisheries provide essential employment and sustenance across the globe, as highlighted in the Illuminating Hidden Harvests: The Contributions of Small-Scale Fisheries to Sustainable Development report (2023). Based on data from 78 national household surveys, around 60.2 million people were employed part- or full-time along the small-scale fishing value chain in 2016, representing nearly 90 percent of all global employment in the industry.

Of these, 27.5 million worked directly in harvesting, with 14.6 million engaged in inland and 12.9 million in marine fisheries. Women play a central role in small-scale fisheries, making up 35 percent of the workforce (around 20.9 million) and almost half (49.8 percent) of those in post-harvest roles.

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, fisherpeople conference held in Cali, Columbia. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS.

Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, fisherpeople conference held in Cali, Columbia. Credit: Aishwarya Bajpai/IPS.

This sector supports 113 million workers, who, along with their 378.7 million household members, make up a community of 491.7 million people reliant on these fisheries. Together, they represent 6.6 percent of the world’s population and 13.2 percent of those living in the 45 least developed countries. Despite the scale of their contributions, small-scale fishworkers remain among the most vulnerable populations.

These communities face entrenched poverty and social hardships, exacerbated by multiple challenges.

Environmental shifts—such as changing ecological cycles, biodiversity loss, fish diseases, and habitat degradation—disrupt their resources and directly impact their livelihoods. Economic pressures, including the modernization of fisheries, Blue Economy infrastructure projects, and port construction, threaten to marginalize these communities further.

Minfer Pervez, a Colombian fishworker speaking at a press conference in Cali, put it succinctly:

“I represent small-scale fishers. We face displacement and violations of our rights—the right to dignified work, access to social security, health services, and economic resources to strengthen small-scale fishing communities. We are also exploited due to pollution and hydrocarbons in the sea. Today, we call for a unified government position that includes us in decision-making and participation because we are key to conservation efforts.”

And it was clear these issues were faced by small-scale fishers around the globe.

A fish worker from Madina, Colombia, said the threats faced were often from mining and similar industries.

“The main threat we face is the proliferation of extractive industries, which intrude into our areas and damage the coastal system. This jeopardizes the productivity of fisher people and threatens food security. Governance must be returned to and entrusted to small-scale fishers and communities.”

Alfonso Simon from Panama added that declarations were often imposed upon them without their involvement or consent.

When asked about human rights in the context of small-scale representatives, a fisher from Panama who identified herself as Marta explained: “Our rights are violated when decisions are made without prior consultation or citizenship recognition. We are forcefully displaced, and when our families migrate from fishing areas, we lose not only our physical space but also our cultural identity, customs, and future. Denying us access to the sea and the right to fish, which is our ancestral practice, undermines both our food security and that of others (who do not fish). We feel vulnerable because decisions are made without considering the voices of our people. Small-scale fishers must be part of decision-making processes.”

On society, conservation, and development, Zoila Bustamante from Chile said, “Representing a geographical point on Earth, we must be heard. We are not only representing this region but also millions of small-scale fishers globally. We feed you, and it is important for you to listen to us. We represent several countries, and goal 23, which pertains to artisanal fishing, is being addressed. We want to be involved in drafting policies and decisions about us, not have others speak on our behalf.”

German Hernander from Honduras, speaking for 2 million fisher people, explained, “We are well organized and want our voices heard at the UN and other global platforms. We don’t want others speaking for us because we know our territories best and are better equipped to take part in global events and activities.”

Small-scale fishers are key to conservation, Eduardo Mercado from Panama said.

“We represent fisher people around the world and use ancestral fishing methods, including nets that do not damage the environment. We avoid fishing species that are reproducing and only fish for what we eat. Sadly, small-scale fishing is coming to an end.”

Aaron Chacon from Costa Rica added, “As artisanal fishermen, I believe we are here to pass the torch to the next generation. The future of artisanal fishing lies with young people, and this is an opportunity for us to preserve our culture and protect it for future generations.”

Libia Arcinieges from Colombia explained that this went beyond the seas.

“On behalf of fishworkers, we call on governments to respect and return our fishing territories. This is vital for the sustainability of water bodies and food sovereignty. Rivers and lagoons feed the world, and continental territories support 500 million people.”

Despite the acknowledgement of huge challenges, there was also an understanding that COP16 had opened doors.

“We must celebrate COP 16 because, for the first time, we have a platform to raise our voices. Conservation begins in rural territories. Real conservation is done by people, and it is necessary to guarantee food security. We must ensure good species management and work towards the 2030 goals. We deserve the proper treatment for our efforts in achieving these goals. Conservation cannot coexist with hunger,” said Luis Perez from Colombia.

This was crucial because Indigenous people and small-scale fishers look after the earth; their practices are sustainable.

“Conservation is the result of nature’s use and management by Indigenous people and small-scale fishers. It is not something that comes after the fact but is embedded in our practices. Problems cannot be solved by megaprojects. Evidence shows that the best conservation is done at the local level, and it is managed by Indigenous and local communities. We must not shy away from discussing this. We have a strong relationship with our territories, and our governance capacities lead to real conservation results,” Albert Chan from Mexico’s Maya Community said.

The fishworkers were emphatic—their representation may have been ignored until now, but they would continue to ensure their voices were heard. Their voices at COP16 underscore the determination of small-scale fishworkers worldwide to claim their place in global decision-making forums—a place where they have historically been absent, despite their role as the ocean’s frontline stewards.

Through their collective call for active participation, respect for territorial rights, and recognition of their contribution to sustainable fisheries, they have highlighted the urgent need for inclusive and equitable governance of ocean resources.

The conference ended with the saying, ‘Artisanal fishing is here to stay, and from now on, we will participate in all events, one way or another!’

The voices at COP 16 underscore the determination of small-scale fishworkers worldwide to claim their place in global decision-making forums—a place where they have historically been absent, despite their role as the ocean’s frontline stewards. Through their collective call for active participation, respect for territorial rights, and recognition of their contribution to sustainable fisheries, they have spotlighted the urgent need for inclusive and equitable governance of ocean resources.

As the world confronts the intersecting crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity, it is clear that the sustainable practices and ancestral knowledge held by small-scale fishers and Indigenous communities are indispensable to conservation and global food security.

Their call is not just for policy inclusion but for a fundamental shift that respects their lived realities, cultural heritage, and essential role in preserving marine ecosystems. With this historic milestone, small-scale fishers have opened a new chapter of advocacy that seeks not only acknowledgment but also partnership in building a sustainable and resilient future for the oceans and the communities that depend on them.

IPS UN Bureau Report

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report, Cali, Columbia, COP16,

  Source

Democracy’s Dilemma: Can We Overcome Short-Termism to Build Lasting Peace?

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Democracy, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

‘Endless nightmare’ of death and destruction in Gaza, UN officials tell Security Council. July 2024. Credit: UNRWA

GENEVA, Nov 4 2024 (IPS) – While the expansion of democracy is a key condition for peace, the Achilles’ heel of democracies is that their leaders are constrained by electoral calendars, forcing them to push for peace or delay, whereas autocracies can afford to play the long game to achieve the favorable outcomes they desire.

Take, for example, the current wars in Ukraine and the Middle East: U.S. leadership may be influenced by the approaching November elections, skewing policy decisions, while autocratic leaders of rival powers can be confident in their long-term tenure.

To be clear, this does not suggest that we should abolish democracy. Quite the opposite—more democracy and more bottom-up scrutiny of leaders are needed, as outlined below.

Short-termism lies at the heart of several misconceptions within Western democracies that complicate peacebuilding efforts. One such misconception is the “better the devil you know” mentality, which has long been used to justify support for brutal regimes in exchange for short-term gains.

From the Cold War to the present, global powers have backed dictators and militias, prioritizing strategic influence over human rights. For instance, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, once an international outcast, was quickly embraced by Western leaders after making some concessions.

However, such cynical realpolitik is not only morally wrong but counterproductive. Supporting autocrats for short-term diplomatic or economic gains only fuels anti-Western sentiment. Recent research shows that U.S. military aid to dubious regimes has often backfired, leading to more, not fewer, terrorist attacks from those nations. Instead of supporting despots, Western nations should focus on promoting long-term peace through jobs, representation, and security.

These are the true foundations of stability, and investing in them is far more effective than cutting deals with dictators. In the end, helping to build peaceful societies is a far better investment than propping up corrupt regimes.

Short-termism has also frequently prompted leaders to prioritize quick cash transfers—often subject to embezzlement—over policies that enhance long-term economic productivity and resilience in fragile countries. The belief that financial aid can “buy” peace is a common misconception.

Peace cannot simply be bought; it must be “invested in” through the development of human capital and productive capacities. Large sums of money, like oil revenues, often fuel corruption and conflict in unstable states. Countries such as Venezuela, Sudan and Nigeria have suffered from the “resource curse,” where abundant resources become a source of instability rather than prosperity.

Similarly, foreign aid, when poorly managed, can have unintended negative consequences. Studies indicate that U.S. food aid can sometimes exacerbate conflict in recipient regions, as armed groups divert resources for their own benefit. This is not to say that Western democracies should abandon aid. Instead, they should focus on smarter investments in education and healthcare, which reduce incentives for violence.

Human capital cannot be stolen, and improvements in education and health increase employment opportunities, diminishing the motivation for conflict. Investing in people is the best path to sustainable peace.

A third common misconception in conflict resolution is that winning over “hearts and minds” should come first, with security following later. This is again driven by short-termism, as providing services may be quicker than establishing security. The theory is that by providing amenities and increasing local support, tensions will ease. However, this approach rarely works in practice.

When people’s basic safety is at risk, they prioritize security over services or political ideals. Research in places like Iraq shows that security and basic infrastructure must be established first—without them, no other policy can succeed. For instance, the Dayton Agreement in Bosnia successfully ended a brutal war and prevented its resurgence, largely thanks to international peacekeepers.

Offering security guarantees to all parties is essential for bringing armed factions to the negotiating table and laying the groundwork for lasting peace. Without security, efforts to win hearts and minds are doomed to fail.

After examining these misconceptions that jeopardize peace efforts, my new book, The Peace Formula: Voice, Work, and Warranties, Not Violence, outlines the solid fundamentals for achieving sustainable peace in the long term, based on hundreds of empirical studies.

First, there is a growing body of evidence that a democratic voice makes a crucial difference. When citizens have political rights, civil liberties, and their preferences are considered, their incentives for violent attacks on the state diminish.

Every regime in history has eventually felt the need to extend political rights or collapsed. Even autocratic Rome was forced to extend citizenship beyond Italy to survive for a few more centuries. Long-term stability and peace are impossible when citizens are treated as slaves.

Similarly, a strong and productive economy is another prerequisite for lasting peace. Having a fulfilling, well-paid job makes it much less tempting to join a warlord or enlist as a volunteer in a brutal war. These higher opportunity costs of abandoning work for warfare form the second pillar of sustainable peace and stability.

Finally, security guarantees are crucial. When the state lacks a monopoly on legitimate violence over its territory, power vacuums typically give rise to warlords, organized crime, and insurgents that challenge state authority. Consider the rise of the mafia in historical Sicily or the situation in Somalia today. Security is one of humanity’s basic needs, and if a state is too weak to provide it, UN peacekeeping troops must be ready to step in when invited.

If the academic literature increasingly provides clear answers on what needs to be done, why then are the components of a peace formula not consistently implemented? While we can point to successful examples of post-conflict reconstruction, such as Germany and Japan after World War II, the list of failed states and aborted democratization efforts is equally long.

The problem can be reduced to the concept of “smart idealism.” It isn’t rocket science. The issue with “smart idealism” is twofold. First, the “smart” aspect is relatively new. Many of the scientific insights underpinning the above arguments—such as the failure of supporting bad regimes and the importance of human capital—are based on cutting-edge research. Only recently has empirical evidence shown that cash handouts can backfire and that “winning hearts and minds” is futile without basic security.

Second, the “idealism” aspect is a tough sell. Peacebuilding is a long-term commitment that requires significant investments. After World War II, the Allies transformed Germany, Japan, and Italy into functioning democracies, but it came at a steep financial cost. The fear of another world war motivated these efforts.

Today, however, few political leaders are willing to commit such resources to nations like Somalia, where the political payoff is uncertain, and re-election prospects at home may be harmed. Additionally, most politicians operate within short-term electoral cycles, bringing us back to the issue of “short-termism.”

Their incentives favor projects with immediate returns, not long-term peace investments that would benefit their successors. In the short term, shady deals with despots may seem politically advantageous, even if they prove disastrous later.

Are these roadblocks insurmountable, or can we do something about them? Yes, we can! Rather than relying solely on elected officials to make the right choices, civil society must apply pressure, advocating for democracy globally. Ordinary citizens have historically driven positive change—think of the movements that dismantled South African apartheid.

Despite global setbacks in democracy over the past decade, fighting for sound, evidence-based policies remain essential. Democracies may falter, but they have an extraordinary capacity to recover, drawing on the remnants of past democratic capital, as Argentina’s history demonstrates. As Abraham Lincoln famously noted, “Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe can never be slaves, or quasi slaves again.”

Dominic Rohner is a globally recognized authority on armed conflict and peacebuilding. He serves as Professor of Economics at the Geneva Graduate Institute, where he holds the prestigious André Hoffmann Chair in Political Economics and Governance, and is also a Professor at the University of Lausanne. He holds a PhD in Economics from the University of Cambridge, and his pioneering work has earned multiple international awards and accolades.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

At COP16, Biodiversity Credits Raising Hopes and Protests

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Biodiversity, Climate Action, Conferences, COP16, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

COP16

Indigenous women in Cali hold a protest commodificationof their traditional natural products. Majority of the indigenous organizations participants in the COP have been vocal about their opposition to biodiversitycredits, which they think is a false solution to halt biodiversity loss. Credit:Stella Paul/IPS COP16 Logo, installed at the conference venue atCali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Indigenous women in Cali hold a protest commodificationof their traditional natural products. Majority of the indigenous organizations participants in the COP have been vocal about their opposition to biodiversitycredits, which they think is a false solution to halt biodiversity loss. Credit:Stella Paul/IPS
COP16 Logo, installed at the conference venue atCali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

CALI, Columbia, Oct 26 2024 (IPS) – At the end of the first week at the 16th Conference of Parties on Biodiversity (COP16), finance emerges as the biggest issue but also shrouded in controversies.

On Saturday, as the COP moved closer to its most crucial phase of negotiations, resource mobilization—listed under Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)—took centerstage, with most parties demanding faster action, greater transparency and the adoption of true solutions to halt biodiversity loss. 

Biodiversity finance: Expectation vs Reality

On Thursday, October 24, the government of China formally announced that the Kunming Biodiversity Fund—first announced by Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2021—was now fully in operation. The fund promises to contribute USD 220 million over the next 10 years, which would be spent especially to help developing countries in implementation of the KMGBF and achieve its targets, said Huang Runqiu, Minister of Environment and Ecology, China, at a press conference. It wasn’t clear, however, how much of the promised amount had been deposited.

This has been the only news of resource mobilization for global biodiversity conservation received at COP16, as no other donors came forth with any further announcements of new financial pledges or contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which was expected to receive USD 400 billion in contribution by now but has only received a paltry USD 250 million.  In addition, there were no announcements of the countries reducing their current spending on harmful subsidies that amount to USD 500 billion and cause biodiversity degradation and biodiversity loss.

In absence of new contributions and lack of any concrete progress on reduction of harmful subsidies, the new mechanisms like biodiversity credits to mobilize resources for implementation of the Global Biodiversity Fund is fast gaining traction.

From October 21–24, the COP16 witnessed a flurry of activities centered primarily around biodiversity credits and the building of new pathways to mobilize finance through this means. Experts from both the UN and the private sector were heard at various forums discussing the needs of developing tools and methodologies that would help mobilize new finance through biodiversity credits while also ensuring transparency.

COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Inclusiveness and the Questions

According to a 2023 report by the World Economic Forum, the demand for biodiversity credits could rise to USD 180 billion annually by 2050. The report said that if major companies stepped into the market, the annual demand for biodiversity credits could go to as high as USD 7 billion per year by 2030.

Experts from the UN and a variety of technical people with various backgrounds said that since biodiversity credits are still in their infancy, there will undoubtedly be a lot of scrutiny and criticism. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance is a group that provides guidance for the establishment of a biodiversity credit market. The urgent need, they said, was to develop infrastructure and policies that would help answer those questions and tackle the scrutiny. The first and foremost of them was to help build digital tools and infrastructure that could be used to share and store biodiversity data in a credible and transparent manner.

Nathalie Whitaker, co-founder of Toha Network in New Zealand, a group of nature-based business investors, said that her organization is building digital tools, especially for helping local communities to participate in biodiversity credit programs and access the benefits.

“Once the communities have these tools, they can instantly see what data is being used to pay for the biodiversity credits or even decide the value of the natural sources in their territory. So, they can see what resources are being discussed, what is being valued, how it’s being done and how the whole discussion is moving forward,” Whitaker said.

Fabian Shimdt-Pramov, another speaker at the event, said that the quality of the tools would decide the course and results of a biodiversity credits project.

Shimdt-Pramov, chief business development officer at Biometric Earth, a German company that uses artificial intelligence to build biodiversity analytics tools from different sources such as remote sensing, wildlife cameras, acoustic monitoring, etc.

“If methodology is not correct, if the data is not correct, the system doesn’t work,” he said, emphasizing on the requirement of high-level technological expertise that is needed to get a biodiversity credit project off the ground.

However, when questioned on the cost of buying such high-end technologies and tools, especially by Indigenous communities living in remote areas without any internet connectivity, both speakers appeared to be at a loss for words.

“I have seen in the Amazon a community selling five mahogany trees on the internet, so I am guessing it’s not a big challenge,” Shmidt-Pramov said in a dismissive voice. Whitaker acknowledged that lack of access to digital technology in Indigenous Peoples communities was an issue but had no solutions to propose.

Terence Hay-Edie of Nature ID, UNDP, however, stressed the need to empower the communities with the knowledge and skills that would help them access the tools and be part of a biodiversity credit.

As an example, he cites restoration of river-based biodiversity as a biodiversity credit project where a river is considered to have the same rights as a human being. According to him, if values of credits are counted and traded for restoration of biodiversity around a river, it will require recognition of all these rights that a river has, which is only possible when the community living along the river has full knowledge of what is at stake, what is restored, what value of the restored biodiversity is to be determined and how the pricing of that value will be decided.

“A river can be a legal entity and have a legal ID. Now, can we build some tools and put them in the hands of the community that is doing the restoration to know the details of it? That’s what we are looking at,” Hay-Edie said.

A False Solution?

However, Indigenous peoples organizations at the COP16 were overwhelmingly opposing biodiversity credits, which they called “commodifying nature.”

What are biodiversity credits? It’s basically regenerating biodiversity where it is destroyed and earning money from that. But it doesn’t work that way, according to Souparna Lahiri, senior climate change campaigner at Global Forest Coalition.

“If we talk of a forest, the ecosystem is not just about trees but about every life that thrives in and around it—the rivers, the animals, plants, bees, insects, flowers and all the organisms. Once destroyed, it’s lost forever. And when you regenerate it elsewhere, you can never guarantee that it will be an exact replica of what has been lost.  This is why the very concept of biodiversity credit is a destructive idea,” says Lahiri.

Valentina Figuera, also of the Global Forest Coalition, said that while trading carbon credits could work as a tool in carbon change mitigation, it would not be the same in biodiversity.

“In climate change, you can measure the total carbon generated by a forest, for example. But in biodiversity, how do you measure it? What is the mechanism? How do you even value life that thrives there? So, this concept is a straight import from climate change and forcefully imposed in biodiversity, which is nothing but a false solution, so that businesses that cause biodiversity loss can conduct their business as usual.

The Dilemma of Participation

COP16, dubbed the “People’s Cop” by Colombia, the host country, has drawn several hundred representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), especially from across Latin America, including Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela and Peru. While the Latin American IPLC organizations appeared united in their opposition to biodiversity credits, African organizations seemed to be willing to consider it.

Mmboneni Esther Mathobo of the South African NGO International Institute of Environment said that her organization was in support of biodiversity credits, which could, she said, not only help the community earn money but also motivate them further to preserve biodiversity.

“We are influencing and making sure that our rights are safeguarded and protected in this newly emerging market of bringing biodiversity credits,” said Mathobo.

Currently, Namibia is implementing its first biodiversity carbon credits project in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Known as the Wildlife Credits Scheme, the project is known as a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) that rewards communities for protecting wildlife and biodiversity.  Mathobo said that the project in Namibia made her realize that there was a great opportunity for local communities to conserve and restore biodiversity and earn from it.

“We faced many challenges to earn carbon credits because that system was established and created behind our heads. And now we wake up, but we find ourselves sitting with a lot of problems in that market where our communities are not even benefiting. But we believe that with the engagement of the biodiversity alliance, UNDP, we are going to be the ones making sure that whatever happens in the biodiversity credit market, it benefits all our regions and all our communities, as well as safeguarding and protecting our rights,” she said.

“To each their own, if Latin American indigenous communities feel they don’t want to trade natural resources, that’s their right. But in Africa, we have the potential to earn biodiversity credits and we need the money, so we are supporting it,” Mahobo commented when reminded of the opposition of Latin American countries to biodiversity credits.

Source: World Economic Forum Report on Biodiversity Credit

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

The Future of Food Security Lies Beyond COP29’s Negotiation Tables

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion



 

ASUNCION, Paraguay, Oct 21 2024 (IPS) – Climate change has thrown our food systems into chaos. Extreme weather events and dramatic climate variations are hammering food production and supply chains across the world. As global leaders gear up for COP29, there’s plenty of buzz about climate action. But can we really expect these slow-moving, bureaucratic negotiations to deliver tangible and swift results to decarbonize and insulate our agri-food systems? Most likely not. But do not despair. While the COP29 talks unfold, crucial climate solutions for transforming food systems are already taking root on the ground.

Jesus Quintana

In the exhilarating, Oscar-winning movie “Everything Everywhere All at Once”, the leading characters are surrounded by overwhelming chaos and complexity. Yet, within this confusion, small actions, and the determination of people behind them, spark powerful change. In stunning similarity, the climate crisis —particularly in food systems— feels like an insurmountable challenge with everything, droughts, floods, storms, hunger and other interlocked crises, striking everywhere, and all at once.

Urgent action is needed. Where do we turn? COP 29 will likely be stuck in slow-paced discussions. Meanwhile, transformative solutions are taking shape on the ground. Across the globe, communities, farmers, sponsors and innovators are quietly building resilience in their food systems, demonstrating that true progress often emerges from the margins, not the center of chaos. Just like in the metaphoric film, finding purpose and action amid disorder is where meaningful change begins.

Grassroots solutions for climate-resilient food systems

While world leaders talk and officials try to turn decisions into workable policies, local communities are already acting. Across the Global South, where the effects of climate change are being felt most acutely, smallholder farmers and grassroots organizations are implementing innovative practices that build resilience to climate shocks.

In regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Latin America, agroecology is gaining traction as a powerful tool for both mitigating and adapting to climate change. This farming approach, which draws on traditional knowledge and emphasizes sustainable, low-emission methods, is helping communities adapt to changing weather patterns while improving food security. Agroecology promotes biodiversity, improves soil health, and reduces dependency on chemical inputs, all of which enhance the resilience of agricultural systems to climate impacts and helps decarbonize them.

The private sector’s role in transforming food systems

Community movements and local governments are playing a vital role, but the private sector is also increasingly driving climate solutions in food systems. Market forces are pushing companies to innovate in ways that reduce agriculture’s climate footprint. The plant-based food revolution is an example of how the private sector is responding to the need for more sustainable diets that lower greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, alternative protein food-tech startups are leading the way towards a sustainable and tasty food future. These unconventional substitutes for traditional livestock farming offer a glimpse of how innovation can drive systemic changes in food production.

In addition to product innovation, there is growing corporate investment in regenerative agriculture—a practice that rebuilds soil health, captures carbon, and improves biodiversity. Large food companies, driven by consumer demand for sustainable products, are making commitments to source ingredients from regenerative farms, contributing to both climate mitigation and long-term food security.

Climate finance outside the COP processes

One of the most significant barriers to transforming food systems in the face of climate change is the lack of adequate financing. While COPs have made important commitments, such as the creation of the Green Climate Fund, the flow of funds has been slow and insufficient to meet the needs of vulnerable communities. In response, philanthropy and private finance are stepping in.

Some patrons and foundations are funding initiatives that help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change, while impact investors are supporting agri-tech innovations that boost productivity in a sustainable way. These efforts, although outside the COP framework, are critical in scaling climate-resilient food systems and achieving global net-zero targets.

Real solutions are happening now

While COP29 will no doubt produce important global agreements, the truth is that many of the solutions to the climate crisis—especially when it comes to food—are already in motion. Farmers, local communities, philanthropies and private companies are building a food system that is more resilient, sustainable, and low-carbon.

Global leaders must take notice. Yes, we need ambitious targets and international commitments. But we also need to support and scale the grassroots movements and private-sector innovations that are already leading the way. Real food security in a climate-challenged world will not be achieved through top-down solutions alone—it will come from empowering those on the frontlines.

As COP29 approaches, let’s not lose sight of what is happening beyond the negotiation tables. The future of food security depends on action today, led by those who can’t afford to wait.

Jesus Quintana is Senior Advisor on Sustainable Food Systems and former Director General, CIAT

IPS UN Bureau

 

A Pact for the World’s Poorest

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Global, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals

Sustainable Development Goals

Deodat Maharaj, Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for Least Developed Countries

Deodat Maharaj,
Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for Least Developed Countries

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 18 2024 (IPS) – Last month, world leaders gathered at the time of the UN General Assembly in New York and agreed on a pioneering Pact for the Future. This global accord has implications across a broad range of issues that affect every country. It offers much hope for the poorest and most vulnerable countries on the planet, known as Least Developed Countries (LDCs).

The world’s 45 LDCs are home to a billion people who face systemic underdevelopment marked by poverty, inadequate health systems, poor infrastructure and limited access to education and technology.

While some progress has been made during the last decade, less than a fifth of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are on track to be met. For example, only around 60% of children in least developed countries complete primary school despite improving literacy rates across the globe. Healthcare disparities are also stark, with maternal mortality rates averaging 430 deaths per 100,000 live births in low-income countries compared to 13 per 100,000 in wealthier nations.

The Pact for the Future, along with its two annexes, the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration on Future Generations, offers an inclusive roadmap aimed at accelerating progress towards the SDGs. By also leveraging advancements in science, technology and innovation, the framework seeks to dislodge decades of stagnation and inequality.

Bridging the massive digital divide, which is most pronounced in poor and indebted countries, will be critical for accelerated progress. Only 36 percent of people in LDCs are connected online, and buying a smartphone costs 95 percent of an average monthly income. In general, low-income countries also have a lower level of educational attainment and fewer trained professionals in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

The Pact for the Future outlines several key commitments: On digital cooperation, the Global Digital Compact presents targeted actions for a safer, more inclusive, more equitable digital world by closing the digital divide and expanding inclusion in the digital economy.

On sustainable development and financing for development, the Pact reaffirms the 2030 Agenda and places the eradication of poverty at the centre of efforts to achieve it. Amongst the proposed actions, it pledges to close the SDG financing gap and strengthen efforts to address climate change, which is disproportionately impacting LDCs.

On financial reform, the Pact seeks an overhaul of global financial systems, including by granting developing countries a greater voice in decision-making. It seeks to mobilize additional financing for the SDGs and generally making finance more readily available. The Pact also addresses the unsustainable debt burdens of many LDCs.

This novel Pact for the Future has the potential to give a push to the development agenda across the developing world, but especially so in LDCs. However, for success, there are some prerequisites. Firstly, there is the matter of financing.  It is good to see the welcome emphasis on boosting financing for developing countries and making it more accessible.  With finance, the possibilities are unlimited. Without finance, progress will once more be stymied. Therefore, the international community must match words with action.

Secondly, the role of business as an essential partner is key. A government-centric approach on its own cannot and will not work. More specifically, there must be attention to the micro, small and medium-scale enterprises sector, which accounts for the majority of businesses and generates the bulk of employment in most developing countries. Systematic support for digitalisation, innovation and the application of technology to this sector will create jobs and opportunities whilst boosting inclusive growth.

Thirdly, multilateralism is vital. The Pact for the Future has enormous potential, with the power to materially shift the dial for least-developed countries. However, it will require international cooperation, sustained political will and strong accountability mechanisms. If realised, this bold initiative could become the catalyst for new technological investments that can help shape an equally bold future for the world’s poorest.

At its core, the UN’s Pact for the Future is a blueprint for renewed cooperation in a fragmented world and offers much hope. There may not be another such opportunity. Let us seize the moment.

Note: Deodat Maharaj is the Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for Least Developed Countries and can be contacted at: Deodat.Maharaj@un.org

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

What is the World’s Most “Demanding and Impossible Job”?

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Democracy, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 18 2024 (IPS) – When Dr Gamani Corea, a former Secretary-General of the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was holding court in the delegate’s lounge, I asked him what he thought of the bitter dispute between then Secretary-General (SG) Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996) and the United States over the Egyptian’s determination to win re-election for a second term.

Dr Corea, a product of two prestigious universities, Oxford and Cambridge, and a one-time Sri Lankan Ambassador to the European Economic Community (EEC) in Brussels, pondered for a while, and declared: “I cannot really figure out why anyone in his right mind would ever want such a demanding job.”

And perhaps he was right.

Trygve Lie of Norway, the first UN Secretary-General, once remarked the SG’s job was “the most impossible job on this earth.”

Still, the post of SG, in contemporary history, has attracted at least three ranking officials from their respective country’s highest political hierarchies: Boutros Boutros-Ghali, acting Foreign Minister of Egypt, Secretary-General Ban ki-moon, a former Foreign Minister of South Korea and the current Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, a former Prime Minister of Portugal.

The SG, for all intents and purposes, is the UN’s Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) who is virtually subservient to 193 political leaders, including presidents, prime ministers, reigning monarchs, foreign ministers and even UN ambassadors.

But he also has no means of implementing UN resolutions or a standing army to enforce them.

Guterres, who has taken a strong stand against the Russian invasion of Ukraine and publicly condemned the devastating killings of civilians in Gaza has come under fire, mostly from Israeli politicians and senior officials, who have not only called for his resignation but also declared him persona non grata (PNG), banning him from entering Israel.

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS the incumbent Secretary-General recently lamented to the media that “Well, it is absolutely true that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has very limited power, and it’s also absolutely true that he has very little capacity to mobilize financial resources. So, no power and no money.”

“That is the reality which every Secretary-General faces and have been aware of”, said Ambassador Chowdhury.

“That is also known generally to the people who follow the United Nations regularly and thoroughly understanding the functional complexity of the world’s largest multilateral apparatus. Why then this reality surfaces and brought to public attention only when the UN leadership fails to carry out the mandated responsibilities?”

This “very limited power”, as worded by SG Guterres, should be highlighted as often as possible to avoid unnecessary and undue expectations of the global community about the UN and its top leadership.

“No Secretary-General has pointed out these limitations as he campaigned for the post and on assuming the office, he said. Current SG Guterres was no exception. He would have been realistic and factual if he had pointed out the limitations – better termed as obstacles – to his leadership as he took office in 2017, and not in 2024 after being in office for nearly eight years.”

Irrespective of the major ongoing wars, the built-in operational weakness and inability of the world’s most important diplomat has always been there, said Ambassador Chowdhury, former Senior Special Adviser to UN General Assembly President (2011-2012) and President of the UN Security Council (2000 and 2001).

Ian G. Williams, President of the Foreign Press Association USA, told IPS it is time for the pandering to stop. Former Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan’s shredding of the UN Charter should have been be taken as Israeli abrogation of the Charter, but barring the Secretary General indicates that Israel has no part in the organization, as should banning UNRWA and the threat to confiscate its assets in Jerusalem to build illegal settlements on occupied territory.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) got Al Capone for tax evasion – and now is the time for Israel to be squeezed out for its manifest procedural breaches of the UN Charter and Vienna Convention even if the two veto holders cover for it on genocide, said Williams.

“Being declared PNG by Israel has probably saved Antonio Guterres’ reputation, which until now has been dimmed by his relative caution in addressing Israeli depredations. To be attacked by an enemy of mankind and international law is no bad thing”.

But now there should be follow-up, he pointed out.

“The members hip of the United Nations should now be carving away at Israel’s membership prerogatives since, even if states are reluctant to act on the state’s egregious violations of international law, it has now clearly broken the basic rules of international diplomacy.”

“Will it take (Israeli Ambassador) Danny Danon dancing across the General Assembly podium with the SG’s head on a platter to provoke action? asked Williams, a former President of the UN Correspondents Association (UNCA).

Asked about the PNG declaration by Israel, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said: “We saw this announcement, which we see as a political statement by the Foreign Minister. And just one more attack, so to speak, on UN staff that we’ve seen from the government of Israel.”

“Look, this issue of PNG has been announced by different countries at different times towards a representative. And as we said every time, we do not recognize that the concept of persona non grata applies to UN staff”, he added.

Time and again, said Ambassador Chowdhury, “I have pointed out that “essentially there are four main constraints to the effectiveness of the Secretary-General”.

Firstly, veto and veto-wielding members of the Security Council, which influences matters in all areas of UN system’s work; secondly, promises and commitments made by the Secretary-General as a candidate to secure his election; thirdly, aspiration to get re-elected for a second term from day one of the first term; and, fourthly, the labyrinthine UN bureaucracy.

“We need to revisit the operational credibility of our much-cherished world body. What was needed in 1945 to be enshrined in the UN Charter is to be judged in the light of current realities.”

If the Charter needs to be amended to live up to the challenges of global complexities and paralyzing intergovernmental politicization, let us do that. It is high time to focus on that direction. Blindly treating the words of the Charter as sacrosanct may be self-defeating and irresponsible. The UN could be buried under its own rubble unless we set our house in order now, declared Chowdhury.

“I am often asked, during ‘questions and answers’ segment following my public speaking, if I want to recommend one thing that would make the UN perform better, what would it be. My clear and emphatic answer always has been “Abolish the Veto!” Veto is undemocratic, irrational and against the true spirit of the principle of sovereign equality of the United Nations”.

In an opinion piece in the IPS Journal in March 2022, I wrote that “Believe me, the veto power influences not only the decisions of the Security Council but also all work of the UN, including importantly the choice of the Secretary-General.”

The same opinion piece asserted that “I believe the abolition of veto requires a greater priority attention in the reforms process than the enlargement of the Security Council membership with additional permanent ones. Such permanency is simply undemocratic. I also believe that the veto power is not ‘the cornerstone of the United Nations’ but in reality, its tombstone.”

Abolishing the veto would also release the election of the Secretary-General from the manipulating control of the veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council.

After choosing nine men successively to be the world’s topmost diplomat, “I strongly believe that it is incumbent on the United Nations to have the sanity and sagacity of electing a woman as the next Secretary-General in 2026 when the incumbent’s successor would be chosen,” he added.

“I would also recommend that in future the Secretary-General would have only one term of seven years, as opposed to current practice of automatically renewing the Secretary-General’s tenure for a second five-year term, without even evaluating his performance,” he noted.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source