Celebrating the end of COP28, which ended with an agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. Credit: UNFCCC
DUBAI, Dec 14 2023 (IPS) – While the outcomes of COP28 are being hotly debated in both the scientific and social justice arenas, the climate conference has taken an unprecedented step forward toward a just transition, says Yamide Dagnet, Director for Climate Justice at the Open Society Foundations.
Making some preliminary remarks a day after the climate conference ended, she said: “COP28 ends like it started: imperfect, yet an important and unprecedented step forward in our “course correction” for a just transition towards resilient and greener economies.”
The UN decision acknowledged the need for the decline of coal, oil, and gas for the first time in an agreement that talks about transitioning out of fossil fuels. It will also be known for operationalizing the Loss and Damages Fund, even if the funding falls far below the requirements for climate-stressed countries and communities.
UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell acknowledged these contractions in his final speech.
“While we didn’t turn the page on the fossil fuel era in Dubai, this outcome is the beginning of the end,” Stiell said.
He also noted that climate finance, which he said was a great enabler of climate action, fell short of the trillions needed to support developing countries with clean energy transitions and adaptation efforts.
He urged ordinary people everywhere to not relent in their demands for a climate-just world.
“In the crucial years ahead, your voices and determination will be more important than ever. I urge you never to relent. We are still in this race. We will be with you every single step of the way.”
Yamide Dagnet, Director for Climate Justice at Open Society Foundations. Credit: TJ Kirkpatrick, Open Society Foundations
Dagnet believes that COP28 is the start of a new era in climate justice.
“This is not an end; rather, just the beginning of an implementation journey that we know is hard but can be so positively transformative, and just if we manage to mobilize, in an equitable manner, all hands-on deck. A climate-just journey and outcome require vigilance, creativity, and accountability; stronger solidarity and engagement at all levels; promoting human rights; and shared prosperity for all,” she says.
This COP, Danget says, laid bare the issues with the Paris Agreement, especially with the just transition.
“More specifically, this COP exposed all the contradictions and challenges faced when implementing the promises of the Paris Agreement, especially a managed, equitable transition away from fossil fuels and the sustained mobilization, alignment, and access to financial flows domestically and internationally to decarbonize and build resilience,” Dagnet says. ”
While some signals got clearer with more substantive commitments, challenges remain, however, in how the just and equitable transition is sequenced.
“Inclusive processes matter to foster shared prosperity and benefits throughout the journey, together with adequate safeguards to minimize unintended adverse impacts of climate-related measures and technologies and to protect frontline and marginalized communities.
“Similarly, the just operationalization and continued capitalization of the Loss and Damage Fund will require vigilance, effective guidance, and mechanisms to make sure commensurate funding is actually mobilized and reaches the communities that need it the most in a timely manner. Adequate mobilization of finance for adaptation by the donor community is also essential to tackle losses and damages with dignity. We are happy that a dozen of them committed to join OSF efforts in this regard.”
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Dec 13 2023 (IPS) – With the US Fed raising interest rates, the world economy is slowing as debt distress spreads across the global South, increasing poverty worldwide to pre-pandemic levels, with the poorest countries faring worst.
Extreme poverty continues to be high and is now worse than before the pandemic in low-income countries (LICs) and among those affected by fragility, violence and conflict. The promise of eradicating poverty worldwide by 2030 has become unachievable.
Jomo Kwame Sundaram
The Bretton Woods institutions’ (BWIs) annual meetings in Marrakech in October were only the second-ever in Africa. But the rich nations-dominated BWIs failed yet again to rise to the challenges of our times, setting Africa and the global South even further back.
Instead of fostering cooperation to address the causes and effects of the contemporary catastrophe, neither the International Monetary Fund nor the World Bank governors could agree on joint communiques due to the greater politicisation of multilateral fora.
Indebtedness immobilises governments Indebtedness and restrictive creditor rules prevent governments from spending more counter-cyclically to overcome the many contractionary tendencies of recent times, besides preventing them from addressing looming social and environmental crises.
The G20’s largest twenty economies have urged strengthening “multilateral coordination by official bilateral and private creditors … to address the deteriorating debt situation and facilitate coordinated debt treatment for debt-distressed countries”.
But its Common Framework to restructure debt has been roundly criticised by civil society, think tanks and even the World Bank on many grounds, including the paltry concessional credit relief offered to a few of the very poorest countries.
In contrast, the G24 caucus of developing countries at the BWIs has emphasised the need for “durable debt resolution measures while collaborating on resolving the structural issues leading to such vulnerabilities.”
But all those advocating purported solutions are not even trying to ensure fiscal space and public spending capacity for counter-cyclical efforts, let alone achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and national development objectives.
Surcharges The IMF currently imposes additional charges on countries that do not quickly clear their debts to the Fund. Besides the usual fees and interest, borrowing countries paid over $4 billion in such surcharges in 2020-22, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Surcharges will cost debt-distressed countries about $7.9 billion over six years. The G24 has emphasised that surcharges are pro-cyclical and regressive, especially with monetary tightening.
Governments have undertaken contractionary policies and cut imports for lack of foreign exchange. This deepens the problems of heavily indebted poor countries who cannot but count on the Fund for relief and solutions.
At Marrakech, the governing International Monetary and Financial Committee decided to “consider a review of surcharge policies”. The G24 called for “a suspension of surcharges while the review – which we hope will lead to substantial permanent reduction or complete elimination – is being conducted.”
Rich nations have been divided over surcharges. With Ukraine now among the top surcharge payers, following civil society criticisms, the Biden administration’s refusal to review surcharges in 2022 was heavily criticised by the US Congress.
Deepening austerity IMF fiscal austerity measures of the 1980s returned with a vengeance after the 2008 global financial crisis, and then again during the Covid-19 pandemic from 2020. Most Fund loans require cutting the public sector wage bill (PSWB), the budget line to pay employees.
Most wage earners in many LICs, including nurses, teachers and other social service workers, work for the state, directly or indirectly. Although much needed, these employees have been more likely to be targeted by such budget cuts.
PSWB cuts may involve hiring or wage freezes, or limiting, or even cutting wages. These inevitably undermine government capacities and services. Fiscal consolidation has also involved raising more indirect, consumption taxes, and tax exemptions, e.g., for essential goods such as food.
In 38 countries with over a billion people, loan conditionalities during 2020-22, the three years of the Covid-19 pandemic, meant regressive tax reforms and public spending cuts. PSWB and fuel or electricity subsidy cuts are also common demands worsening economic contractions.
Austerity bound to fail But the IMF’s own research suggests such austerity policies are generally ineffective in reducing debt, their ostensible purpose. The April 2023 IMF World Economic Outlook acknowledged austerity programmes and fiscal consolidations “do not reduce debt ratios, on average”. Yet, its Fiscal Monitor still demands “fiscal tightening” of most developing countries.
The new IMF-World Bank debt sustainability framework sets the LICs’ external debt-to-GDP ratio limit at 30% or 40%. It insists debt-distressed economies must have lower ratios than ‘strong’ countries, effectively further penalising the weak and vulnerable.
Instead of enabling consistently counter-cyclical macroeconomic frameworks, the IMF’s current short-termist approach is mainly preoccupied with annual, or worse, quarterly balances, mimicking corporate reporting practices.
Such short-termism further limits fiscal space, effectively preventing or deterring public sector investments requiring longer-term macroeconomic frameworks to realise benefits. This discourages ‘patient’ medium- to long-term investments required for national economic planning and transformation, essential for sustainable development.
Restrictive debt and fiscal targets have meant even less public investment. This is typically required of borrowing countries as a credit conditionality. Annual IMF Article IV consultations cause other countries to also accept similar constraints to avoid Fund disapproval.
While a few better-off economies enjoy full employment, most countries face further economic contraction, not least due to interest rate hikes led by the US Fed and their many effects. Instead of being part of the problem, the IMF should be part of the solution.
Colombian President Gustavo Petro presented his environmental plans at COP28 in Dubai and added his country to the small group of nations that support the negotiation of a binding treaty to prevent the proliferation of fossil fuels, despite his country being an oil producer. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
DUBAI, Dec 12 2023 (IPS) – One of the most heated debates at the annual climate summit coming to a conclusion in this United Arab Emirates city revolved around the phrasing of the final declaration, regarding the “phase-out” or “phase-down” of fossil fuels within a given time frame.
Experts who talked to IPS at the summit agreed on the magnitude of the bill, which for some Latin American nations could be unaffordable.
“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources.” — Fernanda Carvalho
Fernanda Carvalho of Brazil, global leader for Energy and Climate Policy at the non-governmental World Wildlife Fund (WWF), referred to the amount without specifying a figure.
“Financial support will be needed. There must be a differentiated approach, differentiated timing, and developed countries must come up with the resources,” the expert, who was present at COP28, held at Expo City on the outskirts of Dubai, told IPS.
COP28 engaged in an acrimonious debate between phase-out and phase-down, with a definite date, of oil, gas and coal, which has already anticipated a disappointing end in Dubai, that in line with the tradition at these summits extended its negotiations one more day, to conclude on Wednesday, Dec. 13.
The “phase-down” concept has been in the climate-energy jargon for years, but it really took off at the 2021 COP26 in the Scottish city of Glasgow, whose Climate Pact alludes to the reduction of coal still being produced and the elimination of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.
Throughout the climate summits since 1995, developing countries have insisted on differentiated measures for them, in accordance with their own situation, the need for financing from developed nations and the transfer of technology, especially energy alternatives.
Enrique Maurtúa of Argentina, senior diplomacy advisor to the Independent Global Stocktake (iGST) – an umbrella data and advocacy initiative – said they hoped for a political signal to determine regulations or market measures regarding a phase-down or phase-out.
“If a target date is not set, there is no signal. If you set a phase-out for 2050, that is a pathway for the transition. With a deadline, the market can react. And then each country must evaluate its specific context,” the expert told IPS in the COP28 Green Zone, which hosted civil society organizations at the summit.
Available scientific knowledge indicates that the majority of proven hydrocarbon reserves must remain unextracted by 2030 to keep the planetary temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius, the threshold agreed in the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement to avoid massive disasters.
On Sunday, Dec. 10 the non-governmental Climate Action Network (CAN) delivered at COP28 a dishonorable mention to the United States for its role in Israel’s carnage in Gaza, in the traditional Fossil of the Day award for “doing the most to achieve the least” in terms of progress on climate change at the summits. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Failed attempts
In the Latin American region there are unsuccessful precedents of fossil fuel phase-outs.
In 2007, the then president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa (2007-2017), launched the Yasuní-Ishpingo Tambococha Tiputini initiative, which sought the care of the Yasuní National Park in the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest, in exchange for funds from governments, foundations, companies and individuals of about 3.6 billion dollars by 2024 to leave the oil in the ground.
The aim was to leave 846 million barrels of oil untouched underground. But a special fund created by Ecuador and the United Nations Environment Fund only raised 13 million dollars, according to the Ecuadorian government. So Correa decided to cancel the initiative in 2013, at a time when renewable energies had not yet really taken off.
In a referendum held in August, Ecuadorians decided to halt oil extraction in a block in Yasuní that would provide 57,000 barrels per day in 2022 – the same result sought by Correa, but without foreign funds.
The result of the referendum is to be implemented within a year, although the position of the government of the current president, banana tycoon Daniel Noboa, who took office on Nov. 23, is still unclear.
Meanwhile, in Colombia, President Gustavo Petro has put the brakes on new oil and coal exploration contracts, a promise from his 2022 election campaign.
In addition, the president announced on Dec. 2 in Dubai that his country was joining nine other nations that are promoting the formal initiation of the negotiation of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Colombia will thus become the first Latin American nation and the largest oil and coal producer to join the initiative that first emerged in 2015 when several Pacific Island leaders and NGOs raised the urgent need for an international mechanism to phase out fossil fuels.
For the undertaking of a just energy transition to cleaner fuels, Petro estimates an initial bill of 14 billion dollars, to come from governments of the developed North, multilateral organizations and international funds.
The latest summit of hope for the climate kicked off on Nov. 30 in this Arab city under the slogan “Unite. Act. Deliver” – the least successful in the history of COPs since the first one, held in Berlin in 1995.
The hopes included commitments and voluntary declarations on renewable energy and energy efficiency; agriculture, food and climate; health and climate; climate finance; refrigeration; and just transitions with a gender focus.
In addition, there were financial pledges of some 86 billion dollars, without specifying whether it is all new money, to be allocated to these issues.
Like many countries, the host of COP28, the United Arab Emirates, has had a pavilion in the so-called Green Zone, which hosts non-governmental organizations, companies and other institutions. The Emirati government bet a lot on the climate summit to deliver results, but without directly targeting the fossil fuels on which its economy depends. CREDIT: Emilio Godoy / IPS
Billions
Given the production and exploration plans of the main hydrocarbon producing countries in the region, the magnitude of the challenge in the medium and long term is enormous.
In October, Brazil, the largest economy in the region and the 11th largest in the world, extracted 3.543 billion barrels of oil and 152 million cubic meters (m3) of gas per day.
This represented approximately two percent of the domestic economy that month.
Mexico, the region’s second largest economy, extracted 1.64 million barrels and 4.971 billion m3 of gas per day in October, equivalent to 52 million dollars in revenues.
Meanwhile, Colombia produced 780,487 barrels of oil in the first eight months of 2023 and 1,568 cubic feet per day of gas, equivalent to 12 percent of public revenues.
“We have to think about decarbonization measures. We want Latin America to be a clean energy powerhouse,” said Carvalho.
As of September, Brazil’s state-owned oil giant Petrobras was working on obtaining 9.571 billion barrels of oil equivalent, according to the Global Oil & Gas Exit List produced by the German non-governmental organization Urgewald.
This represents an excess of 94 percent above the limit set by the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius.
Meanwhile, Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex is producing 1.444 billion barrels of oil equivalent, 56 percent above the threshold set by the Paris Agreement.
Finally, the public company Ecopetrol, mostly owned by the Colombian state, is working to obtain 447 million barrels, 98 percent above the Paris Agreement limit, according to Urgewald.
In addition, the cost of action against the climate crisis is far from affordable for any Latin American nation.
For example, Mexico estimated that the implementation of 35 measures, including in the power, gas and oil generation sector, would cost 137 billion dollars in 2030, but the benefits would total 295 billion dollars.
But Maurtúa says the budget question is only relative. “There is a lot of public money with which many things can be done,” complemented by international resources, he argued.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 12 2023 (IPS) – Last month the Saeima, Latvia’s parliament, passed a package of eight laws recognising same-sex civil unions and associated rights. The new legislation came in response to a 2020 Constitutional Court ruling that established that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to the benefits and legal protections afforded to married opposite-sex couples.
Equal marriage rights are still a long way away, and civil unions are only a first step in the right direction. But in one of Europe’s most restrictive countries for LGBTQI+ rights, activists view it as a significant shift, achieved after numerous attempts over more than two decades. Anti-rights forces agree, and they’re not going to let it happen quietly. They’ve already responded with an attempt to stop the new law being adopted by campaigning for a referendum.
The breakthrough
The first registered partnership bill was submitted by the National Human Rights Office in 1999 but rejected by parliament’s Human Rights and Public Affairs Committee and never debated. Initiatives accelerated in the mid-2010s but were all rejected – the latest attempts coming in 2020 and 2022.
On 29 October 2020, a popular initiative calling for the passage of a civil union law that had gathered more than 10,000 signatures was voted down by parliament. Campaigners immediately started a new initiative for the ‘legal protection of all families’, which attracted over 23,000 signatures – but that too was rejected by parliament in December 2022.
Following the 2020 parliamentary vote, however, two court rulings catalysed change. In November 2020, the Constitutional Court found the labour law in violation of the constitution because it didn’t provide for parental leave to the non-biological parent in a same-sex relationship.
As the result of a 2006 anti-rights initiative to ban same-sex marriage, the Latvian Constitution defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The concept of family, however, isn’t explicitly defined in reference to marriage, and the court understood it more broadly as a stable relationship based on understanding and respect. It concluded that the constitution demanded protection for same-sex partners and gave parliament a deadline of 1 June 2022 to amend the law to provide a way for same-sex couples to register their relationship.
A year later, in December 2021, the Supreme Court ruled that if the deadline was missed, same-sex couples would be allowed to resort to the courts to have their relationship recognised.
Anti-rights backlash
The anti-rights reaction was quick in coming. Two months after the Constitutional Court ruling, parliament introduced a constitutional amendment that went further than ratifying the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, defining family as based on marriage.
To comply with the Constitutional Court’s ultimatum, in February 2022 the Ministry of Justice submitted a civil union bill and two months later, despite an attempted boycott to deny a quorum, parliament approved its first reading.
When it became apparent that the court’s deadline would be missed, same-sex couples started petitioning the courts for recognition as family units. The first of dozens of positive rulings was issued on 31 May 2022.
That same day a tight parliamentary vote resulted in the appointment of Latvia’s first out gay president. Momentum was building, and parliament finally passed a law to allow same-sex civil unions on 9 November 2023.
But conservative politicians managed to put the new law on hold as they seek to gather the signatures required to force a referendum that they hope will prevent its entry into force.
A long way to go
Even if it survives the challenge, the new law is no panacea. Ultimately, access to marriage is the only way to ensure LGBTQI+ couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. Recognition of same-sex relationships is a step forward, but still leaves Latvia behind neighbouring Estonia, which legalised same-sex marriage in June.
If upheld, the new legislation will give registered same-sex couples some but not all the rights associated with marriage – they’ll have hospital visitation rights and tax and social security benefits, but not inheritance rights or the right to adopt children.
Beyond the legal sphere, the biggest challenge will come in influencing public attitudes, as signalled by Latvia’s scores on Equaldex’s Equality Index. This ranking combines a legal index that assesses key laws and a public opinion index that measures attitudes towards LGBTQI+ people. Latvia scores far lower for public opinion than for its laws. A 2019 Special Eurobarometer poll found that only 49 per cent of Latvians thought that LGBTQI+ people should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
The message is clear: changing laws and policies won’t be enough – and any legal victories will remain in peril unless social attitudes change.
Latvian LGBTQI+ organisations are fully aware of this, which is why they’ve worked on both fronts for many years. A centrepiece of their work to challenge prejudice is the annual Pride event, which Latvia pioneered for the Baltic region in 2005. As recounted by its organisers, Latvia’s Pride grew from 70 participants who faced 3,000 protesters in 2005 to 5,000 participants at EuroPride 2015, held in Latvia’s capital Riga, and 8,000 in the 2018 Baltic Pride, also held in Riga. Pride was repeatedly banned by Riga City Council, and it invariably faced hostile counter-protesters – but fewer each time, while the number of Pride participants has grown, boosting people’s self-confidence.
Global trends show progress towards the recognition of LGBTQI+ rights to be much stronger than regression. Latvian LGBTQI+ advocates will continue to push forward on both the policy and awareness-raising fronts. They’ll continue working to secure what they’ve already achieved while striving for more. They’re on the right course.
BERLIN, Dec 11 2023 (IPS) – Champagne corks popped in New York after the majority voted in favour of a UN tax convention. The clear result paved the way for a stronger role of the United Nations in shaping more inclusive and effective international tax cooperation. This fulfils a decades-long demand by the G77 group and the international civil society.
Public Services International (PSI), the international trade union of public service providers, is also an important champion of fair international tax rules. Its General Secretary, Daniel Bertossa, commented that the UN vote stood as a confirmation of the tireless campaigning work of the trade union movement and its partners and the fact that ‘tax rules that affect us all should involve us all’.
For international tax policy is ultimately a global distribution policy that touches on issues of national sovereignty. As far back as the American Revolution, the slogan ‘no taxation without representation’ was aimed at the British Crown.
However, it’s a shame that the historic vote turned into a battle between the Global South and the Global North. On the online platform X, Kenya’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations commented on the result as the most clear-cut North-South vote he had seen in recent years.
In view of the increasing state of crisis and conflict in international relations, people often talk about the formation of global alliances and the need for partnerships on equal terms. But the refusal to release patents for vaccines during the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as the industrialised countries shrugging their shoulders in the face of the existential threat of the international debt crisis for many middle- and low-income countries, have long since undermined trust in the reliability of such partnerships.
A dangerous signal
The vote on the UN tax convention has become the next crucial test, with a clear result: 125 countries voted for and only 48 against the resolution introduced by the group of African countries to the Second Committee of the General Assembly. Opposing votes came from the US, Canada, Australia, all EU countries and EU accession candidates, as well as Switzerland. With the exception of Norway’s abstention, the Global North voted unanimously against the initiative.
In an open letter prior to the vote, the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) had appealed to the EU and the US. In the letter, members of the commission, which is made up of high-ranking economists from the North and South, warned of a ‘dangerous signal’ that ‘blocking the Resolution on Promotion of Inclusive and Effective International Tax Cooperation at the United Nations’ would send.
According to the experts, the suspicion would be that ‘those who most loudly tout the benefits of a rules-based international order don’t actually believe in one.’
Taxes are one of the most important sources for financing public goods and services. In the last 10 years, there has finally been some movement in the discussion about reforming the international tax system. But despite all the talks and negotiations, multinational companies are still able to avoid taxes on a large scale.
Given the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the fact that only four per cent of global tax revenue comes from wealth-related taxes, it is obvious who bears the main financial burden of financing – working people and ordinary citizens, not billionaires. Labour is taxed, not wealth and financial assets.
The call to make the United Nations the central venue for international tax cooperation is as old as the debate about reforming the international tax system itself. So far, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the club of industrialised countries, has taken a leading role in the reform process of the international tax system. On behalf of the G20, the OECD is developing proposals to curb base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS).
The Group of 77 and civil society organisations such as the Global Alliance for Tax Justice have long called for the United Nations to take a stronger role in shaping an international tax system aligned with the goals of the sustainable development agenda that will ensure greater international tax justice.
With the slogan ‘if you are not at the table, you are on the menu’, they criticise the fact that developing countries do not have an equal seat at the table in OECD negotiations.
Proponents are expecting the UN tax convention to not only lead to a more inclusive international tax policy but also more transparency in the process, thanks to the greater involvement of civil society. Critics, however, fear a parallel event to existing reform efforts and a dilution of the negotiation successes achieved so far at the OECD.
The need to work together
In the ICRICT Commission’s press release following the vote, former Colombian Finance Minister José Antonio Ocampo struck a conciliatory tone. He called the resolution ‘one step further towards global social justice’ and sees it as a ‘strengthening of institutions, democracy and international stability’. He asks that all ‘learn from all the efforts of the past and build this process not on antagonism but on real cooperation between countries and between global institutions’.
Against the backdrop of the enormous financing challenges of our time, it is crucial that common solutions be quickly found for better international taxation of multinational corporations, without getting lost in institutional disputes. A UN tax convention offers the opportunity to give the negotiation successes of the OECD process a universal basis of legitimacy and also to build on important preparatory work by the United Nations Committee of Experts on international tax matters, such as the framework on double taxation developed by the UN.
The OECD’s Inclusive Framework on BEPS has undoubtedly achieved a historic negotiation success with the agreement on a global minimum tax. The minimum rate is intended to put a stop to international competition between locations for ever-lower taxes.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of the Global South, the rate of 15 per cent is clearly set far too low to achieve the hoped-for positive revenue effects. There is even concern that countries with higher tax rates will have an incentive to adjust them downwards. For this reason, the ICRICT Commission has been long calling for a rate of 22–25 per cent.
Structural injustices, such as the distribution of taxation rights, are hardly addressed in the OECD’s two-pillar approach. Critics see the linking of taxation rights to the registered domicile of the parent company as posing a disadvantage for the countries in which the actual value creation takes place along production networks. Therefore, criticism is being levelled that the OECD-led reform process has little to offer the countries of the Global South, while at the same time preventing them from taking their own initiatives, for example in the taxation of the digital economy.
It is hoped that the United Nations could facilitate a more effective reconciliation of interests, while at the same time placing taxation issues in the larger context of financing the transformation towards a sustainable global development model. Along those lines, preparations for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4), which will take place in Madrid in 2025, are set to begin in early 2024.
Ten years after the last major conference in Addis Ababa, the FfD4 conference is to provide the much-needed framework to create coherence between the various reform agendas, especially in the areas of taxes, debt and investment.
The demand for the creation of a universal and intergovernmental tax institution under the auspices of the United Nations was already on the agenda in Addis Ababa but was rejected by industrialised countries.
In the final statement of the accompanying Civil Society Forum, more than 600 non-governmental organisations from around the world expressed their disappointment at the lost opportunity. With the new vote on the UN tax convention behind it, the Global South is now in a significantly better negotiating position for FfD4 in Madrid 2025
Sarah Ganter is a political scientist and heads the Globalisation Project of the Global and European Politics Department of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Source: International Politics and Society (IPS) is published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.
Five fishers pray for a benevolent sea in Dublar, Bangladesh. Credit: Rodney Dekker/Climate Visuals
DUBAI, Dec 11 2023 (IPS) – Wealthier nations must deliver the finances so developing countries can adapt—the time for excuses is over, says Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Bangladesh’s Special Envoy for Climate Change in the Prime Minister’s Office.
In a wide-ranging exclusive interview with IPS, Chowdhury said climate change was at the forefront of Bangladesh’s focus, as one in seven people faces displacement due to climate impacts. With this in mind, the country was focused on building resilience and ensuring resources were directed toward the most marginalized.
“The biggest challenge we will have is the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas because it means flooding in the short term and sea level rise in the long term. We will lose about one-third of our agriculture GDP between now and 2050, and we can lose up to 9 percent of our GDP by 2100,” Chowdhury said.
“For us, it is not just one sector of our economy; it is an existential challenge for Bangladesh.”
Saber Hossain Chowdhury, Special Envoy for Climate Change, Prime Minister’s Office Bangladesh, addresses an event on climate change at the Bangladesh Pavilion at COP28 in Dubai. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS
Here are edited excerpts from the interview:
IPS: In terms of climate change and the government’s actions, where is Bangladesh?
Chowdhury: Bangladesh is giving most importance to the Global Stocktake because it has two dimensions—one is looking back and the other is looking forward. We all know how bad things are when we look back because we know we are nowhere near where we are supposed to be.
But what do we do with that knowledge? How do we move forward across the board in terms of mitigation, adaptation, funding, loss and damage, and, of course, the global goals? And one of the points we are stressing is the continual interconnectedness between mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage.
The more effective our mitigation in terms of keeping temperatures in check, the more manageable the adaptation becomes, and the more manageable the adaptation becomes, the lesser the burden that we pass on the loss and damage. And it is meaningless to talk about adaptation without the context of mitigation. Because of the rise in temperature to 1.5°C (the threshold to which world leaders pledged to try to limit global warming), there will be a certain level of adaptation that you can do, but if the temperatures are close to 3°C, as it is now said the temperature is likely to rise to, then all adaptation will become loss and damage because there are limits to adaptation and there are limits to resilience.
IPS: What are your views on the ongoing COP 28?
Chowdhury: We got off to a great start. The fact that the Loss and Damage Fund was agreed upon on the first day. In terms of context, we only had this in the agenda last year and it was approved and within a year, the funds have started coming in. That was a huge positive. We know that funds are nowhere near what the needs are. But it is a good start and we are hoping that the same spirit will be seen in other challenges such as mitigation, adaptation, funding, etc.
Also, I believe the presidency has tried to be very inclusive. But at the end of the day, it depends on global solidarity. If members of the conference come together, then we will have the deal we need. Let me say that this COP is a hugely important COP because we don’t have the luxury of tradeoffs. We have to deliver across the board, and mitigation (to keep to the Paris Agreements) of 1.5°C is an absolute must, and if we go beyond that, I think we have lost the game. To what extent we can mitigate will then determine what our adaptation requirements are. The better we manage adaptation, the lesser the burden will be on loss and damage. It is a litmus test. Bangladesh being at ground zero for climate change impact, this is a hugely important event for us.
IPS: Bangladesh is often termed a ‘victim of climate change’ across the globe. Why is that?
Chowdhury: One in seven people in Bangladesh will face displacement because of climate change, and that adds up to about 13–14 million people. We have a huge food security problem because we are losing agricultural land due to sea level rise. The biggest challenge we will have is the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas, which means flooding in the short term and sea level rise in the long term. We will lose about one-third of our agriculture GDP between now and 2050, and we can lose up to 9 percent of our GDP by 2100. For us, it is not just one sector of our economy; it is an existential challenge for Bangladesh.
IPS: What do you believe is the responsibility of wealthier nations towards Bangladesh?
Chowdhury: Climate justice is all about wealthier nations. They must deliver the finance so that we can adapt; they must rein in the emissions. They need to act as per science and not have any excuses. It is now or never because the window of action is closing very fast. If we don’t get it right in COP 28, whatever we do in subsequent COPs may well be too little, too late. We have to reduce emissions by 43 percent by 2030. We must reduce emissions by 60 percent by 2035, then we can get to net zero. With that, you also must have tripled the amount of renewable energy and doubled your energy efficiency. So, it has to be a package of responses. It is for the wealthier nations to mitigate, to provide funds for loss and damage as well as for adaptation.
IPS: How responsive do you find these developed nations to the climate crisis?
Chowdhury: Responses must be taken at two levels: one is making pledges, and the other is delivering on pledges. There is no point saying we will do this and then, as in the past, not do it. Pledges are the first step, and therefore everybody has to realize that this is the question of global solidarity. It is not the question of Bangladesh and the developed world. What is happening in Bangladesh today will also happen in those countries that we call developed. Greenland will become greener again because the ice is going to melt. They will also face sea level rise. So it is not the question of “if,” it is the question of when.
IPS: Bangladesh has advanced warning systems for the climate. Please tell us about it.
Chowdhury: We have what we refer to as an ‘early warning system’ If you look at the cyclone that hit Bangladesh in the early 1970s, up to a million people died because of it. But now, when the cyclone hits Bangladesh, the number of deaths is in single digits. The reason for that is that through an early warning system, we can evacuate people to cyclone shelters. That has saved lives, and Bangladesh is a model for that.
Our honorable Prime Minister has this program where we are building cyclone shelters all around the coast of Bangladesh so that people can be evacuated there. We cannot stop a storm or a hurricane from coming, but we can prepare ourselves so that the loss of lives is minimal, and that is what Bangladesh has achieved. Also, the early warning system is very basic, and it is community-based.
IPS: What is Bangladesh doing about the agrarian crisis?
Chowdhury: Bangladesh has a huge success story in terms of food production. From a deficit nation, we are now a surplus nation, but climate change threatens that. This is something we look at in terms of food security, so all of the advances and progress that we have made over the years are now at risk because climate change is impacting this sector.
IPS: What is the role of NGOs in terms of tackling climate change and offering support to governments?
Chowdhury: NGOs need to have partnerships with governments where they can take those ideas and scale them up. That is the reason that NGOs need to have a very close relationship with the government. The whole issue is not how much money I have spent; it is what impact I have generated through spending that money.
But the message at the end of the day is that whatever money is spent must be spent on those who are most marginalized. So how do we get funds for the people who are most in need? I think that must be an overriding issue. This is a learning process, and we are all on the learning curve. When we go back to Bangladesh, we need to have a brainstorming session with NGOs and CSOs and find out what is working, how we can make their job easier, and how we can make the collaboration a win-win between various ministries, government departments, and NGOs. IPS UN Bureau Report
