Civil Society Trends for 2025: Nine Global Challenges, One Reason for Hope

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

LONDON / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 24 2024 (IPS) – It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.

Andrew Firmin

1. More people are likely to be exposed to conflict and its consequences, including humanitarian and human rights disasters, mass displacement and long-term trauma. The message of 2024 is largely one of impunity: perpetrators of conflict, including in Israel and Russia, will be confident they can resist international pressure and escape accountability. While there may be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza or halt to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, those responsible for large-scale atrocities are unlikely to face justice. Impunity is also likely to prevail in the conflicts taking place largely off the global radar, including in Myanmar and Sudan. There will also be growing concern about the use of AI and automated weapons in warfare, a troublingly under-regulated area.

As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.

Inés M. Pousadela

2. The second Trump administration will have a global impact on many current challenges. It’s likely to reduce pressure on Israel, hamper the response to the climate crisis, put more strain on already flawed and struggling global governance institutions and embolden right-wing populists and nationalists the world over. These will bring negative consequences for civic space – the space for civil society, which depends on the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Funding for civil society is also likely to be drastically reduced as a result of the new administration’s shifting priorities.

3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.

4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.

5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.

6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.

Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.

7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.

8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.

9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.

10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.

Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage

People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.

Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.

In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.

Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

South Africa’s G20 Presidency: A Call for Transformative Leadership in a Fractured World

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Inequality, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

G20 social in Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.

NEW DELHI, India, Dec 9 2024 (IPS) – South Africa’s G20 Presidency begun in December, with only 12% of SDG targets on track and significant backsliding on more than 30%. As we write this today, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift and practical solutions for a progressive, people-centred, and development-driven agenda in a fractured global landscape that needs collective healing.

This sense of urgency was pinned down at the recent G20 Summit in Brasil, where South Africa assumed the Presidency amidst calls from global civil society at the Civil20 (C20) Summit to address today’s most pressing challenges: climate change, gender inequality, social inequalities, economic injustice and attacks on civic space.

This year, the Brasilian Association of NGOs (Abong), chaired the C20, amplifying the demands of social movements and civil society for global justice, highlighting the importance of gender in public policies, anti-racist economies, climate justice, the fight against hunger and the urgent need for a reform of international governance.

“Civil society is not merely a participant; it is a driving force for justice, equity, and sustainability. Without our voices at the table, solutions risk being incomplete, inequitable, and disconnected from the realities of the most vulnerable,” says Henrique Frota, Executive Director of Abong.

Yet, while the G20 leaders addressed major global crises, from climate change to economic inequities, the voices of those most affected by these challenges—grassroots movements, communities that have been historically marginalised, and civil society actors—still struggle to resonate within the halls of power. In fact, gaps persist in ambition and action, exposing a troubling disconnect between commitments made in international forums and the lived realities of citizens from across the globe.

Civil Society as Equal Partners: Moving Beyond Symbolism

The G20 Rio de Janeiro Declaration, emphasizes inclusivity and acknowledges civil society’s role , but it omits the issue of shrinking civic space in many member countries. The G20 should adopt concrete measures to protect civic freedoms and support CSOs in challenging environments. Futhermore, while the Declaration noted the inclusion of civil society groups in dialogues like the G20 Social Summit, it stopped short of guaranteeing institutionalised access for CSOs.

Jyotsna Mohan Singh, Forus, C20

Aoi Horiuchi, Senior Advocacy Officer at the Japan NGO Center for International Cooperation (JANIC) shared that despite opportunities for C20 to meet, decision-makers and submit recommendations, “access is still limited”. The meeting with President Lula happened just days before the Leaders’ Summit. He emphasizes, “civil society as an official stakeholder group, should have access to all preparatory meetings and have space for speaking up. To truly “leave no one behind”, we need to maintain the momentum and push for more progressive policies on taxing and economic justice.”

Meaningful engagement with civil society cannot be an afterthought. Governments must ensure that civil society has the autonomy, resources, and protected spaces necessary to contribute fully to global governance processes. Expanding civic engagement is crucial, especially at the national level. Data shows that 87% of the global population lives in countries where civic freedoms are restricted.

As we approach the first G20 Summit on the African continent in 2025, “breaking silos, shifting power, and amplifying Global South movements must become central priorities for global governance reform,” says Anselmo Lee, Lead from the Asia Civil Society Partnership for Sustainable Development.

“We must move beyond a purely event-driven approach and establish clear, systematic mechanisms for reviewing decisions and ensuring their effective implementation,” adds Harsh Jaitli, Chief Executive Officer of the Voluntary Action Network India (VANI). Over the years, along with other national platforms, VANI has worked towards strengthening the voice of civil society in this space.

Inequality and Systemic Change: Missing the Mark

The Declaration rightly identified inequality as a root cause of global challenges but failed to propose bold measures to dismantle the structures that sustain the giant inequality pyramid. The creation of the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty is a step forward. Specifically on access to food, the declaration identifies hunger as a pressing global issue, affecting 733 million people in 2023, and emphasizes the G20’s commitment to eradicating hunger. The vague language and lack of binding commitments undermine these efforts. Specific timelines and accountability frameworks are missing.

We need clear action to address inequalities and extreme wealth concentration, fair financing and reforms of multilateral development banks (MDBs) and public development banks (PDBs) to provide financing that directly benefits marginalised communities and an increase in support to local actions, notably investing in community-driven solutions that prioritise equity and sustainability. In the narratives and the actions, there is insufficient detail on the mobilization of resources for grassroots and community-led initiatives, a critical element of Forus’s advocacy for inclusive and sustainable financing.

Policy Coherence: Balancing the Scales and Building a Holistic Approach to Sustainability

While the G20 Declaration highlighted policy coherence as essential for achieving the SDGs, it leans heavily on private sector-driven solutions. Blended finance and private capital mobilization dominated the agenda, sidelining civil society and community-led initiatives and reinforcing the systemic inequities that perpetuate inequality.

A just and sustainable world cannot be achieved through fragmented efforts. Instead, a holistic approach that leverages the collective expertise and experiences of all stakeholders, public, private, and civil society. From a CSO perspective, a critical gap persists in aligning economic growth objectives with environmental, social, and human rights priorities. Without such alignment, conflicting objectives risk perpetuating systemic inequalities and ecological harm, undermining the promise of the SDGs. Moreover, the recent trend of certain governments, such as Argentina’s proposed withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, highlights a dangerous backslide from climate commitments and a disregard for sustainable development goals.

Gender Equality: From Rhetoric to Reality

The G20 Declaration’s recognition of gender equality and commitments to combating gender-based violence are important steps forward. However, the absence of concrete action plans undermines their potential impact. Women and girls continue to face systemic barriers, including unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities, as well as the pervasive threat of gender-based violence. To achieve meaningful progress, policies must go beyond rhetoric and actively dismantle discriminatory norms while creating leadership opportunities for women across all sectors.

The C20 group, has emphasised the need to address exclusion in all its forms. Expanding spaces for groups that have historically been marginalised and ensuring their full, equal, and meaningful participation in governance processes is not only a matter of justice but also a prerequisite for the type of development that We want. This includes acknowledging the intersecting challenges faced by rural and Indigenous women and those experiencing multiple forms of discrimination.

“Beyond commitments, we need frameworks that address intersectional inequalities and create leadership opportunities for all women, including rural, Indigenous, and LGBTIQ+ communities,” says Alessandra Nilo, C20 Sherpa, Director of Gestos, Brasil.

Reforming Global Governance for a Just Future

The G20 Declaration acknowledges the urgent need to reform global governance systems to address the complex crises of our time—geopolitical tensions, economic inequities, and climate emergencies. Commitments to the UN reform and enhancing transparency in global governance are promising. The emphasis on anti-corruption measures and progressive taxation aligns with civil society’s struggles.

A critical starting point is amplifying the voice of World Majority countries in global decision-making. The inclusion of the African Union as a full G20 member is a welcome development, signaling progress toward inclusivity. However, current power imbalances, where wealthier nations disproportionately influence global policy agendas, must be dismantled to ensure fairness and inclusivity.

As the G20, a premier global forum, assumes increasing responsibility for shaping the global agenda, it is imperative that it takes a strong stance on these issues and “shift powers”.

As the C20 Declaration reminds us, the solutions to today’s challenges lie in inclusive governance that empowers those most affected by global crises. We urge governments and G20 stakeholders to institutionalise civil society participation, prioritise rights-based solutions, and deliver on commitments to equity and sustainability. By weaving together the principles of rights, equity, sustainability, and collaboration, we can begin to build a future where “no one is left behind” not just in theory but also in practice.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

COP29 Outcomes – A Call to Action for the World’s Most Vulnerable Nations

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2024 (IPS) – The conclusion of the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) brings with it a blend of urgency, frustration, and a glimmer of hope for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

These nations, responsible for only a fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, suffer disproportionally from the devastating impacts of climate change.

Yet, for these vulnerable countries, the outcomes of COP29 fell short. While there was progress in certain areas, the agreements reached do not match the scale of the challenges. As the UN Secretary-General António Guterres rightly underlined, COP29 provides a foundation, but it demands urgent and ambitious action to build upon it.

Rabab Fatima

Climate Finance: The Lifeline for vulnerable nations

One of the COP29’s pivotal outcome was the agreement to achieve a global climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion annually by 2035. While this amount does not address the needs of the most vulnerable nations, we must ensure it is delivered in full.

While COP29 left ambiguity in the exact source of these funds, between now and 2035, we should seek to establish aspirational targets for amounts flowing from the established financial instruments under the UNFCCC-such as the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund.

We must also closely track the amounts for adaptation, and to the extent possible ensure that these finance flows are from public sources, and grant-based resources or highly concessional means.

While COP29 did not set targets for the most vulnerable nations, systematic reporting will be critical to ensuring that resources reach those who need them most.

The formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are critical for LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS to respond to escalating climate threats. COP29’s establishment of a support programme for NAP implementation in LDCs is a positive step. However, swift and efficient operationalization is essential.

Loss and Damage: From promises to reality

Progress on the Loss and Damage Fund was a key highlight of COP29. Turning pledges into tangible contributions is now the priority. Stepping up capitalization and rapid and effective operationalization of this Fund are critical to addressing irreversible losses in lives and livelihoods caused by climate change.

Mitigation and Energy Transition

While COP29’s mitigation outcomes were modest, the urgency for emissions reductions cannot be overstated. According to the 2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, emissions must fall by 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels to stay on track for the 1.5°C target.

For LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS, achieving this requires unprecedented support to ensure access to renewable energy and investments in sustainable energy. A just energy transition is integral not only for climate goals but also for economic growth and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

A Call to Action

COP29’s results remind us that incremental steps are insufficient. The world’s most vulnerable countries are facing a climate emergency that demands bold and immediate actions. This includes:

    • Ensuring timely and adequate climate finance flows to LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS.
    • Enhancing support for adaptation, particularly through public grant and highly concessional means.
    • Full and effective operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund.
    • Empowering LDCs and SIDS to fully participate in the Article 6* market mechanisms.
    • Supporting sustainable energy transitions aligned with global climate goals.

The survival of LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS is not just a litmus test for global climate commitments -it is a matter of justice, not charity.

As we look toward COP30 and beyond, let COP29 be a catalyst for greater ambition and unity. The time for half-hearted measures is over; the world must deliver on its promises to secure a just and sustainable future for all.

Rabab Fatima is Under Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS).

Prior to her appointment, she was the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York. In that role, she co-chaired the preparatory committee meetings of the Fifth United Nations Conference on the LDC (2021). She also served as the President of the Executive Boards of UNICEF (2020) and UN-Women (2022) as well as Vice-President of the UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Executive Board.

She was the first women to be elected as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2022. She also led other inter-governmental processes, including the facilitation of the progress declaration of the first International Migration Review Forum.

*https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-64-mechanism

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Courage, not Compromise? A Rallying Cry that Failed a Deadlocked COP Meeting

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Combating Desertification and Drought, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Negotiations on a future global drought regime got underway at UNCCD COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 2-13.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 (IPS) – Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

COP29 Falls Short on Finance

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Inequality, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Murad Sezer/Reuters via Gallo Images

LONDON, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – COP29, the latest annual climate summit, had one job: to strike a deal to provide the money needed to respond to climate change. It failed.

This was the first climate summit dedicated to finance. Global south countries estimate they need a combined US$1.3 trillion a year to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to the impacts of climate change. But the last-minute offer made by global north states was for only US$300 billion a year.

The agreement leaves vague how much of the promised target, to be met by 2035, will be in the form of direct grants, as opposed to other means such as loans, and how much will come directly from states. As for the US$1 trillion annual funding gap, covering it remains an aspiration, with all potential sources encouraged to step up their efforts. The hope seems to be that the private sector will invest where it hasn’t already, and that innovations such as new levies and taxes will be explored, which many powerful states and industry lobbyists are sure to resist.

Some global north states are talking up the deal, pointing out that it triples the previous target of US$100 billion a year, promised at COP15 in 2009 and officially reached in 2022, although how much was provided in reality remains a matter of debate. Some say this deal is all they can afford, given economic and political constraints.

But global north states hardly engaged constructively. They delayed making an offer for so long that the day before talks were due to end, the draft text of the agreement contained no numbers. Then they made a lowball offer of US$250 billion a year.

Many representatives from global south states took this as an insult. Talks threatened to collapse without an agreement. Amid scenes of chaos and confusion, the summit’s president, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, was accused of weakness and lack of leadership. By the time global north states offered US$300 billion, negotiations had gone past the deadline, and many saw this as a take-it-or-leave it offer.

The negotiating style of global north states spoke of a fundamental inequality in climate change. Global north countries have historically contributed the bulk of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions due to their industrialisation. But it’s global south countries that are most affected by climate change impacts such as extreme weather and rising sea levels. What’s more, they’re being asked to take a different development path to fossil fuel-powered industrialisation – but without adequate financial support to do so.

These evident injustices led some states, angered by Babayev bringing talks to an abrupt end, to believe that no deal would have been better than what was agreed. For others, waiting another year for COP30 would have been a luxury they couldn’t afford, given the ever-increasing impacts of climate change.

Financing on the agenda

Far from being settled, the conversation around climate financing should be regarded as only just having begun. The figures involved – whether it’s US$300 billion or US$1.3 trillion a year – seem huge, but in global terms they’re tiny. The US$1.3 trillion needed is less than one per cent of global GDP, which stands at around US$110 trillion. It’s a little more than the amount invested in fossil fuels this year, and far less than annual global military spending, which has risen for nine years running and now stands at around US$2.3 trillion a year.

If the money isn’t forthcoming, the sums needed will be eclipsed by the costs of cleaning up the disasters caused by climate change, and dealing with rising insecurity, conflict and economic disruption. For example, devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, in October caused at least 217 deaths and economic losses of around US$10.6 billion. Research suggests that each degree of warming would slash the world’s GDP by 12 per cent. Investing in a transition that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and enables communities to adapt isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s also the economically prudent option.

The same problems arose at another recent summit on a related issue – COP16 of the Biodiversity Convention, hosted by Colombia in October. This broke up with no agreement on how to meet the funding commitments agreed at its previous meeting. The international community, having forged agreements to address climate change and protect the environment, is stuck when it comes to finding the funding to realise them.

What’s largely missing is discussion of how wealth might be better shared for the benefit of humanity. Over the past decade, as the world has grown hotter, inequality has soared, with the world’s richest one per cent adding a further US$42 trillion to their fortunes – less than needed to adequately respond to climate change. The G20’s recent meeting said little on climate change, but leaders at least agreed that ultra-wealthy people should be properly taxed. The battle should now be on to ensure this happens – and that revenues are used to tackle climate change.

When it comes to corporations, few are richer than the fossil fuel industry. But the ‘polluter pays’ principle – that those who cause environmental damage pay to clean it up – seems missing from climate negotiations. The fossil fuel industry is the single biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for over 75 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s grown incredibly rich thanks to its destructive trade.

Over the past five decades, the oil and gas sector has made profits averaging US$2.8 billion a day. Only a small fraction of those revenues have been invested in alternatives, and oil and gas companies plan to extract more: since COP28, around US$250 billion has been committed to developing new oil and gas fields. The industry’s wealth should make it a natural target for paying to fix the mess it’s made. A proposed levy on extractions could raise US$900 billion by 2030.

Progress is needed, and fast. COP30 now has the huge task of compensating for the failings of COP29. Pressure must be kept up for adequate financing combined with concerted action to cut emissions. Next year, states are due to present their updated plans to cut emissions and adapt to climate change. Civil society will push for these to show the ambition needed – and for money to be mobilised at the scale required.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

Confronting the Global Crisis of Land Degradation

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The 16th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 16) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) will take place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2 to 13 Dec. 2024

RIYADH Saudi Arabia, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – A major new scientific report was launched December 1, a day ahead of the opening of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP16).

The report charts an urgent course correction for how the world grows food and uses land in order to avoid irretrievably compromising Earth’s capacity to support human and environmental wellbeing.

Produced under the leadership of Professor Johan Rockström at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in collaboration UNCCD, the report, titled Stepping back from the precipice: Transforming land management to stay within planetary boundaries, was launched as nearly 200 countries convene for COP16 starting on Monday, 2 December in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The report draws on roughly 350 information sources to examine land degradation and opportunities to act from a planetary boundaries’ perspective. It underlines that land is the foundation of Earth’s stability and regulates climate, preserves biodiversity, maintains freshwater systems and provides life-giving resources including food, water and raw materials.

It outlines how deforestation, urbanization and unsustainable farming are causing global land degradation at an unprecedented scale, threatening not only different Earth system components but human survival itself.

The deterioration of forests and soils further undermines Earth’s capacity to cope with the climate and biodiversity crises, which in turn accelerate land degradation in a vicious, downward cycle of impacts.

“If we fail to acknowledge the pivotal role of land and take appropriate action, the consequences will ripple through every aspect of life and extend well into the future, intensifying difficulties for future generations,” said UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw.

According to the UNCCD, the global area impacted by land degradation – approx. 15 million km², more than the entire continent of Antarctica or nearly the size of Russia – is expanding each year by about a million square km.

Planetary boundaries
The report situates both problems and potential solutions related to land use within the scientific framework of the planetary boundaries, which has rapidly gained policy relevance since its unveiling 15 years ago.

“The aim of the planetary boundaries framework is to provide a measure for achieving human wellbeing within Earth’s ecological limits,” said Johan Rockström, lead author of the seminal study introducing the concept in 2009. “We stand at a precipice and must decide whether to step back and take transformative action, or continue on a path of irreversible environmental change,” he adds.

The planetary boundaries define nine critical thresholds essential for maintaining Earth’s stability. The report talks about how humanity uses or abuses land directly impacts seven of these, including climate change, species loss and ecosystem viability, freshwater systems and the circulation of naturally occurring elements nitrogen and phosphorus. Change in land use is also a planetary boundary.

Six boundaries have already been breached to date, and two more are close to their thresholds: ocean acidification and the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere. Only stratospheric ozone – the object of a 1989 treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals – is firmly within its “safe operating space”.

Unsustainable agricultural practices
Conventional agriculture is the leading culprit of land degradation according to the report, contributing to deforestation, soil erosion and pollution. Unsustainable irrigation practices deplete freshwater resources, while excessive use of nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilizers destabilize ecosystems.

Degraded soils lower crop yields and nutritional quality, directly impacting the livelihoods of vulnerable populations. Secondary effects include greater dependency on chemical inputs and increased land conversion for farming.

Climate change
Meanwhile, climate change – which has long since breached its own planetary boundary – accelerates land degradation through extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, and intensified floods. Melting mountain glaciers and altered water cycles heighten vulnerabilities, especially in arid regions. Rapid urbanization intensifies these challenges, contributing to habitat destruction, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

The report also states that land ecosystems absorbed nearly one third of human-caused CO₂ pollution, even as those emissions increased by half. Over the last decade, however, deforestation and climate change have reduced by 20% the capacity of trees and soil to absorb excess CO₂.

Transformative action
According to the report, transformative action to combat land degradation is needed to ensure a return to the safe operating space for the land-based planetary boundaries. Just as the planetary boundaries are interconnected, so must be the actions to prevent or slow their transgression.

Principles of fairness and justice are key when designing and implementing transformative actions to stop land degradation, ensuring that benefits and burdens are equitably distributed.

Agriculture reform, soil protection, water resource management, digital solutions, sustainable or “green” supply chains, equitable land governance along with the protection and restoration of forests, grasslands, savannas and peatlands are crucial for halting and reversing land and soil degradation.

From 2013 to 2018, more than half-a-trillion dollars were spent on agricultural subsidies across 88 countries, a report by FAO, UNDP and UNEP found in 2021. Nearly 90% went to inefficient, unfair practices that harmed the environment, according to that report.

New technologies
The report also recognizes that new technologies coupled with big data and artificial intelligence have made possible innovations such as precision farming, remote sensing and drones that detect and combat land degradation in real time. Benefits likewise accrue from the precise application of water, nutrients and pesticides, along with early pest and disease detection.

It mentions the free app Plantix, available in 18 languages, that can detect nearly 700 pests and diseases on more than 80 different crops. Improved solar cookstoves can provide households with additional income sources and improve livelihoods, while reducing reliance on forest resources.

Numerous multilateral agreements on land-system change exist but have largely failed to deliver. The Glasgow Declaration to halt deforestation and land degradation by 2030 was signed by 145 countries at the Glasgow climate summit in 2021, but deforestation has increased since then.

Some key findings include:
Land degradation is undermining Earth’s capacity to sustain humanity;
Failure to reverse it will pose challenges for generations;
Seven of nine planetary boundaries are negatively impacted by unsustainable land use, highlighting land’s central role in Earth systems;
Agriculture accounts for 23% of greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of deforestation, 70% of freshwater use;
Forest loss and impoverished soils drive hunger, migration and conflicts;
Transformation of land use critical for humanity to thrive within environmental limits
Read the full press release with more facts and figures in all official languages, as well as with daily media updates: https://www.unccd.int/news-stories/press-releases

The COP is the main decision-making body of UNCCD’s 197 Parties – 196 countries and the European Union. UNCCD, the global voice for land, is one of three major UN treaties known as the Rio Conventions, alongside climate and biodiversity, which recently concluded their COP meetings in Baku, Azerbaijan and Cali, Colombia respectively.

Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of UNCCD, COP 16 will be the largest UN land conference to date, and the first UNCCD COP held in the Middle East and North Africa region, which knows first-hand the impacts of desertification, land degradation and drought. COP 16 marks a renewed global commitment to accelerate investment and action to restore land and boost drought resilience for the benefit of people and planet.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source