‘We Will Not Go Quietly Into the Rising Sea,’ Tuvalu Tells International Court of Justice

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, International Justice, Natural Resources, PACIFIC COMMUNITY, Pacific Community Climate Wire, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Trade & Investment

Climate Change Justice

Territorial integrity is not limited to physical land territory. It must be conceived as of a historical and cultural norm linked to the vitality, dignity and identity of the people holding the right to self-determination to ensure respect for territorial integrity goes beyond ensuring the maintenance of physical land boundaries—Professor Phillipa Webb

Water floods in, showing how nature and people are at risk. Trees can’t grow because of salt, leaving no protection. This photo warns about climate change’s effect on our islands and atolls. It’s a clear sign we need to act to keep our world safe. Credit: Gitty Keziah Yee/Tuvalu

THE HAGUE, Dec 13 2024 (IPS) – Rising sea level caused by greenhouse gas emission-fueled climate change is threatening existence in coastal communities and island nations. At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on Thursday, December 12, 2024, small island states, including Tuvalu and a Pacific-based fisheries agency detailed their ongoing existential threats caused by the climate change-induced sea level rise and impacts on fishery-based livelihood.

Tuvalu, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) both focused their oral presentations before the court on highlighting added and exacerbated struggles faced by people in the region through visual evidence and testimony of the frontline community.

At the request of Vanuatu, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the obligations of UN member states in preventing climate change and ensuring the protection of the environment for present and future generations. While its advisory opinion will not be enforceable, the court will advise on the legal consequences for member states who have caused significant harm, particularly to small island developing states. So far, more than 100 countries and agencies have presented their case before the court.

On Thursday, island states stressed the disproportionate effects of climate change on small islands, urging the court to recognize the duty of cooperation, the stability of maritime zones, and the principle of continuity of statehood.

Climate Crisis Can not be Solved in Isolation—Tuvalu

Tuvalu, a small island nation in the South Pacific with over 11,000 people, emphasized its right to self-determination and territorial integrity at a time when it is facing an existential threat from climate change-induced sea level rise.

The low-lying island nation of Tuvalu is fighting for its existence; according to scientists, much of their land area, along with critical infrastructure, will be under water by 2050. Tuvalu urged the ICJ to issue a strong advisory opinion on states’ obligations to combat climate change and protect small island states.

Furthering the submission, Laingane Italeli Talia, Attorney General of Tuvalu, said climate change is the single greatest threat the country is facing. “It cannot be that in the face of such unprecedented and irreversible harm, international law is silent.

“Tuvalu, accordingly, asks the court to keep the unprecedented infringement on our people’s right to self-determination at the very center of his critical advisory opinion in order to help chart the pathway forward for our very survival.”

‘Annihilation Posed By Nuclear Weapons’ 

Professor Phillipa Webb, representing Tuvulu, used the analogy that the threat of disappearance faced by states like Tuvalu is like the potential annihilation posed by nuclear weapons.

“This extreme circumstance triggers all the tools that international law provides for respecting statehood, ensuring territorial integrity and protecting sovereignty over natural resources,” Webb said.

“Tuvalu’s constitution affirms that its statehood will remain in perpetuity, notwithstanding any loss to its physical territory. In the same way that the right to survival requires state continuity, the right also compels respect for territorial integrity, which encompasses a state’s permanent sovereignty over its natural resources,” Webb said, drawing on the drawing on the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.

“Respect for territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations in the context of climate change. This obliges States to prevent and mitigate transboundary environmental harm. It requires that States facilitate adaptation to climate change impacts, and these measures should not be limited to the preservation and restoration of coasts and islands but also to protecting the rights of peoples to self-determination.”

The right to self-determination includes aspects other than physical land, and the court should take this into account.

“Territorial integrity, a corollary of the right to self-determination, is not limited to physical land territory. It must be conceived as a historical and cultural norm linked to the vitality, dignity and identity of the people holding the right to self-determination to ensure respect for territorial integrity goes beyond ensuring the maintenance of physical land boundaries. Like other concepts in international law, such as cultural heritage, biodiversity and intellectual property, it covers tangible and intangible assets.”

Quoting Tuvaluan climate activist Grace Malie, Webb told the court, “Tuvalu will not go quietly into the rising sea.”

Statehood Should be Ensured—AOSIS

AOSIS submitted its case on behalf of the 39 small island and low-lying coastal developing states and urged it to consider the existential threat posed by climate change-induced sea level rise and the possibility that some states may not even have dry land in the near future.

It emphasizes the importance of equity and self-determination in the context of climate change and the need for international law to support the continuity of statehood and sovereignty.

Fatumanava-o-Upolu III Dr. Pa’olelei Luteru, Chair of AOSIS and Permanent Representative of Samoa to the United Nations, focused on the impact of the climate crisis on states defined by the ocean’s limited resources and geographic vulnerability.

“Small island developing states rely heavily on coastal and marine resources as key drivers of our economies,” he said. “However, climate change is disrupting the fishery sector because of warming waters and an altered marine environment.”

The AOSIS asked the court to uphold the principle of continuity of statehood as established in international law, ensuring that statehood and sovereignty endure despite physical changes to land territory.

Luteru added, “In this era of unprecedented and relentless sea level rise, international law must evolve to meet the climate crisis and the disproportionate effect that it has on states.”

Focus on Sustainability of Tuna Fisheries—FFA

Rising sea level and ocean warming are not only threatening the existence of island nations but they are also hammering a major way of livelihood, fishing. Representing the fishing community at the ICJ, FFA highlighted the state of loss of fisheries, including tuna.

Tuna fisheries are crucial for the economic, social, and cultural development of Pacific Island communities, with 47 percent of households depending on fishing as a primary or secondary source of income.

FFA, an intergovernmental agency, focuses on sustainable use of offshore fisheries resources, particularly tuna, which are facing threats to climate change impacts.

“Damage to fisheries and loss of fish stocks will have a significant negative impact on the income, livelihoods, food security and economies of Pacific small island developing states, as well as social and cultural impacts,” Pio Manoa, Deputy Director General of FFA, said.

“Climate change is driving tuna further to the east and outside of members, exclusive economic zones into the high seas, threatening the loss of economic and food security of Pacific small and developing states.”

Studies show climate change-driven redistribution of commercial tuna species will cause an economic blow to the small island states of the Western and Central Pacific, ultimately threatening the sustainability of the world’s largest tuna fishery.

By 2050, under a high greenhouse gas emissions scenario, the total biomass of three tuna species in the waters of 10 of the Pacific small islands developing states members of the agency could decline by an average of 13 percent.

“The adverse consequences for the livelihood and well-being of coastal communities are profound, including their very security and survival impacts on marine resources, including offshore fisheries such as tuna,” Manoa said. “It is therefore incumbent upon the international community to take necessary action to deal with anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and their consequences.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

In Zimbabwe, Women Are Leading the Battle Against Climate Change

Posted on by admin

Africa, Africa Climate Wire, Civil Society, Climate Change, Combating Desertification and Drought, Development & Aid, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations, Women & Economy

Food and Agriculture

Some farmers buying seed at discounted prices during a seed fair in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPSome of the farmers purchasing seed at discounted prices during a seed fair in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Some farmers buy seed at discounted prices during a seed fair in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

MAFAURE, Zimbabwe, Dec 11 2024 (IPS) – When Susan Chinyengetere started to focus on farming in her home village in south-eastern Zimbabwe, she wondered if she could earn a living and raise her children.

With climate catastrophes ravaging the country, her hesitation on rain-fed agriculture worsened. But two years later, the 32-year-old mother of two from Mafaure village in Masvingo, about 295 km from the capital Harare, is now a champion in farming.

Armed with early maturity and drought-resistant crop varieties like orange maize, cowpeas and lab-lab for livestock feed, Chinyengetere has a good harvest despite prolonged droughts across Zimbabwe.

“There was a drought last farming season, but I managed to get enough food to feed my family until next season,” she says. “I even sold leftovers to the local market.”

Brutal Drought Ravaging Crops

Zimbabwe, a landlocked country, relies on rain-fed agriculture. But over the years, rain patterns have been erratic, threatening the entire agriculture sector. The Southern African nation has been hit by one climate disaster after another. If there are no violent cyclones, severe floods or devastating droughts are ravaging the country.

From 2023 to 2024, a brutal El Niño drought—the strongest on record—plummeted the entire country.

Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia were also not spared by the same El Niño drought. There was crop failure in more than 80 percent of the country, according to the government.

Some farmers have been left with little or no food, and sources of livelihood in rural areas have been affected. Zimbabwe may be reaching a tipping point for rain-fed agriculture.

Farmers in Masvingo are growing orange maize, which has high vitamins amid climate change. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Farmers in Masvingo are growing orange maize, which has high vitamins amid climate change. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

But woman farmers like Chinyengetere have their little secret as to how they are becoming resilient and adapting to the effects of climate change. She is part of Ukama Ustawi, an Initiative on Diversification in East and Southern Africa by CGIAR, a global research partnership for a food-secure future dedicated to transforming food, land, and water systems in a climate crisis. The farmers are subdivided into small groups of at most 15.

“I use zero tillage when I plant orange maize on my land spanning 40 m by 90 m. The idea is not to disturb the soil,” says Chinyengetere. “I was used to white maize. When I joined this project, I planted yellow maize for the first time.”

Zero tillage is an agricultural technique where farmers sow seeds directly into the soil without disturbing it. It is part of conservation agriculture that is becoming popular in Zimbabwe after it was upscaled across the country by the government. Chinyengetere prefers the technique because it has less labour than tillage farming.

“Even when I am alone and my children are at school, I can still sow the whole field,” she says.

In Masvingo, men are also providing solutions to climate change through the Ukama Ustawi initiative, though women are the majority.

Anton Mutasa from Zindere village in Masvingo says he has been able to feed his family because of climate-smart agriculture. “I grow orange maize, cowpeas, and lab-lab. To conserve water, prevent soil erosion and allow water to infiltrate, I spread some mulch around the plants,” says the 55-year-old father of six.

“This is vital, particularly during the dry season. I also rotate the crops to improve soil fertility. For instance, if I grew cowpeas on this part of land last season, this season I will make sure I grow oranges.”

Climate change affects women differently

Both men and women are affected by climate change. But for women, it hits harder because of the preexisting inequalities. They suffer because of the entrenched societal roles and limited access to resources.

Women are primarily responsible for cooking for the family and fetching water, particularly in rural areas. This places them on the frontlines of climate change because food and water become scarce during extreme weather events like drought.

Another farmer, Tendai Marange, from Machengere village in Masvingo, says less labour farming techniques allow women to continue their role as women. “I am expected to do house chores, but at the same time I want to go to the farm. This technique saves me time,” says the 47-year-old mother of three.

Farmers networking during a seed fair in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Farmers networking during a seed fair in Masvingo, Zimbabwe. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

Chinyengetere says she is inspiring other women. “I feel empowered. I am occupied. The fact that I am bringing income and food for the family brings happiness to my marriage,” she says. “I even doubted myself. I thought, as a woman, I am a child-bearing machine.”

Once Chinyengetere and Marange’s projects are successful, they will share what they learned with others in Zimbabwe and beyond the borders.

“I am contributing solutions to climate change. Women are often at the receiving end of climate change. But my case is different; I am leading from the front,” says Chinyengetere.

Over 1 million farmers have been reached with different agriculture initiatives. At least 140,000 use the technologies that were promoted under Ukama Ustawi in Ethiopia, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia, according to Christian Thierfelder, a principal cropping systems agronomist at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), one of the research centres working with CGIAR.

About 60 percent of those were women. More than 45 percent were youth.

Thierfelder says as part of Ukama Ustawi in Zimbabwe, they work in 30 communities, where they have trials on drought-resistant crops.

He says Ukama Ustawi’s primary aim is to shift farmers’ behavior and perceptions, moving away from conventional maize-only farming systems towards diversified maize-based systems under conservation agriculture principles. “This involves promoting practices like crop rotation, intercropping, and sustainable soil management, all of which are essential for improving resilience to climate variability and boosting long-term productivity,” Thierfelder says.

Many farmers across the country lost their livestock due to lack of feed after grazing lands were depleted and outbreaks of diseases precipitated by the El Niño drought. Ukama Ustawi is working to change this by fostering livestock feeding systems with green manure cover crops and forage grasses.

“I lost my cattle in the previous droughts before joining Ukama Ustawi. I had no feed and diseases worsened the situation. I am now using lab-lab to make feed for my goats,” says Marange.

Networking

Ukama is a Shona word that translates to relationship. Marange says the groups provide networking opportunities. “We are a family. We share tips and ideas on conservation farming,” she says.

Since 2020, CIMMYT has been organizing seed and mechanization fairs where farmers access high-quality seeds and equipment they would otherwise struggle to access. “It is cheap to buy seeds at the fairs. It is usually cheap. We get discounts,” says Marange.

Thierfelder says Ukama Ustawi recognizes the importance of integrating a variety of crops, such as legumes, cowpeas, groundnuts, and small grains, into maize-dominated systems to achieve both ecological and economic sustainability.

“Seed fairs play a pivotal role in advancing this mission by providing farmers access to a diverse range of seeds, including drought-tolerant maize and other complementary crops that support diversification,” he says.

Thierfelder says plans are underway to upscale the Ukama Ustawi initiative to reach approximately more than 20 million farmers around the world with their technologies. “This is meant to be scaled up because those have reached a scaling readiness level and that is very high,” he says.

For Chinyengetere, the dream is to see more women leading the battle against climate change. “It is tough to convince young women to do farming under this extreme weather. Climate change is pushing them away into other dangerous activities like illegal mining,” she says.

Note: This story was produced with support from CGIAR and MESHA.

IPS UN Bureau 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

Plastics, Power, and Politics: The High-Stakes Fight for a Global Treaty

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Economy & Trade, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Local people from Watamu, Kenya, work with Local Ocean Conservation to pick up plastic on the beach. Credit: UNEP/Cyril Villemain

KERALA, India, Dec 9 2024 (IPS) – As the fifth round of negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) for a global plastics treaty concluded in Busan, South Korea (25 November-December 1 2024), the meeting underscored both the complexities and the promises of multilateralism. What we saw in Busan was indicative of other environmental treatymaking spaces, including ones on climate and biodiversity.

There is a stark contrast between countries who are willing to show ambition and those who will engage in obstruction at any cost. This exposes the systemic challenges that both plague and demonstrate the enduring potential of multilateral environmental diplomacy to confront global challenges.

The plastics crisis affects every living being on the planet, becoming an undeniable reality rather than just a collection of statistics or headlines. Every day brings new stories of its impact on our health, environment, and livelihoods. Recognizing the scale of this crisis, countries around the world came together almost three years ago to say enough is enough.

The plastics treaty negotiations are the result of this collective realization, marking a critical step toward addressing a problem that touches every corner of our shared existence.

A 30-foot-high monument entitled Turn off the Plastics Tap by Canadian activist and artist Benjamin von Wong was exhibited at the UN Environment Assembly in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2022. Credit: UNEP/Cyril Villemain

We were supposed to leave Busan with treaty text that would be ready for adoption. But instead, negotiators left without an agreement on the treaty, the barriers ahead are not only procedural or political; they are also philosophical. They reflect a deeper battle between the outdated paradigms of profit-driven growth and the urgent need for a collective reimagining of progress.

Petro-states are continuing to cling to fossil-fueled profits at the expense of collective well-being. It is not merely an economic strategy—it is a moral failure that will damage generations to come!

A Tale of Two Ambitions

Despite significant challenges, the negotiations also showed critical pathways forward. Panama and the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDS) emerged as powerful voices advocating for a global cap on plastic production—a bold proposal that garnered substantial support from 100 countries.

In a decisive show of ambition during the closing plenary, Rwanda, speaking on behalf of 95 nations, championed ambitious controls on plastic production, while Mexico, representing 85 countries, pressed for stringent regulations on chemicals of concern. These elements represent the backbone of a treaty that is fit to overcome the scale of the plastics crisis and deliver meaningful and lasting solutions.

The Shadow of Petrochemical Interests

The petrochemical industry’s influence loomed large over INC-5, with industry representatives forming the largest single delegation at the talks — outnumbering delegations of Indigenous Peoples, scientists, and some countries including the European Union and all of its member states.

This outsized presence underscores the strategic interest of fossil fuel giants toward plastics as renewable energy and progressive climate policies shrink traditional markets.

Petrochemicals, used in everyday products like plastics and medical equipment, are now the largest drivers of global oil demand, surpassing cars and planes. They are projected to account for over a third of oil demand growth by 2030 and nearly half by 2050, adding 7 million barrels of oil and 83 billion cubic meters of natural gas consumption daily by mid-century.

This shift represents a calculated gamble to embed plastics deeper into the global economy, ensuring the fossil fuel industry’s continued dominance despite the environmental and health costs. Yet the environmental and health costs of this strategy are catastrophic. Without significant reductions in plastic production, the sector is poised to consume up to 31% of the remaining carbon budget needed to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

But climate impact is only part of the story. Plastics are fundamentally chemical products, often containing a cocktail of toxic additives that threaten human and planetary health. From endocrine disruptors leaching into water supplies to carcinogens linked to manufacturing processes, the chemical footprint of plastics amplifies the crisis far beyond its carbon implications.

Decarbonizing the plastics industry, as some companies now propose, is a false solution. True solutions must address not only the climate footprint of plastics but also their broader toxic legacy.

An Unfinished Fight

While the Busan meeting failed to produce a treaty, it succeeded in highlighting what must change for future negotiations to succeed. Moreover, it remained successful in retaining the obligations that mattered by countering derailing tactics by certain bad-faith actors. The next resumed session (INC-5.2) offers a critical opportunity to address key sticking points:

1. Production Limits: A global cap on plastic production is non-negotiable. Countries must resist attempts to dilute this measure and instead push for clear, enforceable targets.

2. Chemical Regulation: The treaty must include robust mechanisms to phase out harmful chemicals in plastics, coupled with transparency and traceability requirements to ensure that people have a right to know what chemicals go into their products.

3. Financing Mechanisms: Developing nations are disproportionately affected by plastic pollution and they need financial and technical support to implement treaty obligations. The treaty should be funded by developed countries and should also ensure that the private sector, especially polymer producers, pays its share.

4. Inclusivity and Transparency: The exclusion of observers, Indigenous peoples, and civil society from critical stages of the Busan session undermined the treaty’s legitimacy. Future sessions must prioritize meaningful inclusivity and transparency, ensuring that all voices, especially those from Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities, are heard.

Holding Spoilers Accountable

It is imperative to call out countries that continue to obstruct progress in the INC negotiations. Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran, among others, self-organized under the so-called “Like-Minded Countries” bloc and have consistently opposed meaningful advances in the treaty process. Their tactics go beyond mere scepticism of the process. They actively undermine the treaty’s ambition and hold back substantive decisions by weaponizing the requirement for consensus in all decisions.

Consensus, while valuable for inclusivity, is being misused as a way to stifle ambition. International precedent, from the Minamata Convention to the Montreal Protocol, demonstrates that incorporating voting as a last resort when countries can otherwise not agree, strengthens negotiation processes and ensures democratic decision-making. Without this safeguard, the plastics treaty risks being shaped by the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

To salvage the treaty’s ambition, the INC must embrace procedural reforms that prioritize efficiency and inclusivity. Voting provisions are essential to overcoming the current impasse and enabling the majority of nations to push forward robust, science-based measures.

A Path Forward

The road to a binding global plastics treaty will not be easy, but the urgency of the crisis leaves no room for complacency. Multilateralism, while imperfect, remains our best hope for tackling global challenges. The successes of past agreements, from the Montreal Protocol to the Minamata Convention, remind us that persistence and ambition can yield transformative results.

We may have left Busan without a treaty — but no treaty was better than a weak one. Civil society, scientists, and progressive nations must rally to maintain pressure, ensuring that the treaty addresses the full lifecycle of plastics—from extraction to disposal—and delivers justice for affected communities. High-ambition country negotiators will have to leave their diplomatic tightropes at home and bring their steel-toed boots to the next session.

In the words of Panama’s lead negotiator, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gomez, “When we reconvene, the stakes will be higher. This is not a drill, this is a fight for survival. We did not accept a weak treaty here, and we never will.”

Dharmesh Shah is Consulting Senior Campaigner with Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), and coordinator of the Civil Society and Rights Holders Coalition.

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