African Public Transport Struggles To Match Urban Growth

Posted on by admin

Africa, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Featured, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Sustainable Development Goals

A congested street in Bulawayo where public transporters pick up passengers at an undesignated point. Credit: Ignatius Banda/IPS

A congested street in Bulawayo where public transporters pick up passengers at an undesignated point. Credit: Ignatius Banda/IPS

BULAWAYO, Dec 18 2024 (IPS) – As the population in African cities grows, governments are struggling to provide sustainable public transport solutions, conditions that have led to gridlock in major business districts.

Projections show rapid growth of urban populations across the continent, and town planners are hard-pressed for time on how new spaces and infrastructure will be created for efficient public transport.

A growing number of cities are expected to hit a population of more than 10 million people by 2035, but social services are failing to match the overload on existing infrastructure, with public transport being one of the major sticking points.

In countries such as Zimbabwe, where government-owned transport utilities have been overtaken by thousands of illegal taxi operators, local authorities are fighting an uphill battle to bring order out of the urban chaos.

In the country’s two major cities, Harare and Bulawayo, municipalities have put in place measures to decongest the public transport sector, but these have fallen flat as both registered and unregistered operators have routinely ignored the decrees to work from designated points.

For example, in 2015, the city of Bulawayo awarded a multimillion-dollar contract for the construction of what was hoped to be a futuristic public transport terminus, but operators have shunned it, claiming its positioning in the central business district is bad for business.

While the Egodini Mall Taxi Rank and Informal Traders Market was also expected to provide trading space for vendors in anticipation of business from travelers, it is marked by empty vending bays, with traders preferring crowded CBD sidewalks instead.

City mayor David Coltart has conceded that the project risks becoming a white elephant, and construction of the next phase of the project has been halted to deal with these challenges, highlighting the challenge growing cities face in their efforts to modernise amenities.

Zimbabwe’s public transport headaches come against the backdrop of the Second World Sustainable Transport Day this November, where policymakers and agencies rethink urban mobility.

Other pertinent issues include ways of incorporating public transport into the broader improvement of “safety and security, reducing pollution and CO2 emissions while increasing the attractiveness of urban environments,” according to a United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) briefing during the 2023 World Sustainable Transport Day.

According to UN Habitat, the day was declared by the UN General Assembly “in recognition of the important role of safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport systems for all in supporting sustainable economic growth, improving the social welfare of people, and enhancing international cooperation and trade among countries.”

However, to achieve this, UNECA says African governments must put in place “remedial measures” that will ensure the continent’s transportation systems are more sustainable and environmentally friendly.

“African governments must prioritize inclusive urban planning,” said Atkeyelsh Persson, chief of the Urbanization and Development Section at the Economic Commission for Africa.

“Key areas of focus should include upgrading infrastructure such as roads and utilities,” Persson told IPS.

This comes as Zimbabwe and other regional countries seem to be going backwards in realising UNECA’s goals as they are struggling to cope with rapid urbanisation and provide sustainable urban transport solutions for city dwellers.

During last year’s inaugural World Sustainable Transport Day, UNECA said the continent was in urgent need of developing sustainable and resilient public transport infrastructure if Africa is to “optimise the development of interconnected highways, railways, waterways, and airways.”

The agency noted that Africa’s rapid urbanisation was also a call to escalate sustainable urban transport solutions, but with government cuts in public spending and also the drying up of private investors in the sector, public transportation has only deteriorated.

“Despite this growth in urban populations, the rate of growth in housing, infrastructure, and basic amenities has not kept pace with this urban growth,” said Nyovani Madise, a demographics professor and President of the Union for African Population Studies.

“This has resulted in mushrooming of urban informal settlements, waste and pollution, congestion on the roads and overcrowding,” Madise told IPS.

While UNECA has called for the optimisation of interconnected transportation, Zimbabwe’s once thriving railways has become virtually nonexistent, with the National Railways suspending its passenger train service citing operational challenges.

As part of desperate efforts to deal with the shrinking space for public transport, the Bulawayo municipality is planning to take over parking space at the National Railways of Zimbabwe train station for use as a long-distance bus terminus.

The unusual move was triggered by an increasing number of long-distance buses in Bulawayo who have joined smaller pirate taxis picking up passengers in undesignated points.

These developments have further highlighted the difficulties some African countries face in balancing urban population growth and public transport needs, which could be a missed opportunity towards UNECA’s proposed “socially inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and well-governed continent.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

Breaking Latin America’s Cycle of Low Growth and Violence

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Economy & Trade, Global Governance, Headlines, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Syldavia/iStock by Getty Images via IMF

WASHINGTON DC, Dec 12 2024 (IPS) – Violent crime and insecurity have a disproportionate impact on Latin America and the Caribbean, with severe consequences for socioeconomic development.

Despite representing just 8% of the world’s population, the region accounts for nearly one-third of global homicides. This as well as other alarming statistics highlight the urgent need for comprehensive strategies to address the far-reaching effects of crime and violence.

New research by the IDB and IMF highlights how crime, insecurity and low growth reinforce each other in a vicious cycle that stifles investment, reduces tourism, and accelerates emigration.

Macroeconomic instability—recessions, inflation spikes, and rising inequality—is associated with increased violence. Easily available firearms and organized crime amplify these effects, undermining institutions and the rule of law.

Quantifying the Costs of Crime

A recent IDB paper quantifies the direct losses, estimating that crime and violence cost the region 3.4 percent of GDP annually. These costs stem from productivity losses due to lives lost, injuries, and imprisonment; private-sector expenditures on security; and public spending on police, justice, and prisons.

This is equivalent to 80 percent of the region’s public education budgets and double its social assistance spending. But the impact of crime doesn’t end there. It discourages investment, reduces tourism, and drives emigration, further weakening economic resilience and constraining the region’s future growth.

IMF research reveals that crime hampers innovation and reduces firm productivity, compounding economic stagnation over time. Leveraging geo-localized data on nightlights, the study finds that halving homicide rates in violent municipalities could increase their economic output by up to 30 percent.

At the regional level, as shown in last year’s IMF research, reducing homicide rates to the global average could boost Latin America and the Caribbean’s annual GDP growth by 0.5 percentage points.

Conversely, macroeconomic instability often fuels spikes in violence: a recession in LAC is associated with a 6 percent increase in homicides the following year, while inflation spikes above 10 percent are linked to a 10 percent rise in homicides the year after. Growing inequality further exacerbates the link between economic stagnation and crime.

How can policymakers help break the cycle?

Breaking this vicious circle requires a deeper understanding of its root causes and impacts. Rigorous research and better data are essential for designing public policies that effectively reduce crime. Institutions like the IDB and IMF can generate evidence, monitor crime dynamics, advise member countries, and facilitate discussions.

As the topic has become macro critical in the region, the institutions brought together experts and policymakers in a joint conference a few weeks back.

First, sound economic policy plays a preventive role. Stability, low inflation, robust social safety nets, and opportunities that reduce inequality and expand access to education and employment are critical to breaking the cycle of violence and stagnation.

Financial authorities are also uniquely positioned to weaken criminal networks by addressing illicit markets, curtailing financial flows, and tackling money laundering—cutting off resources that sustain organized crime.

Second, because the impact of crime extends far beyond direct economic costs, economic policymakers must adopt a broader role by targeting high-risk groups, improving crime monitoring, and enhancing interagency coordination.

Effective interventions can deliver transformative results. With IMF support, Jamaica implemented reforms that protected public investment and social spending while successfully halving debt between 2012 and 2022. Community-based interventions supported by the IDB reduced gang violence in 68% of affected neighborhoods.

In Rosario province, Argentina implemented a comprehensive strategy to combat crime, including territorial control of high-risk neighborhoods by the Federal Police, stricter prison systems for high-profile offenders, and collective prosecution of criminal groups under new legislation like the anti-mafia law.

These efforts, alongside progress on a juvenile penal code to deter drug traffickers from recruiting minors, have led to 65% reduction homicides in 11 months. In Honduras, strategic security reforms contributed to a 14% decline in the homicide rate and an 8% increase in public confidence in law enforcement.

Policymakers must prioritize using resources effectively, given the scope of the challenge. Public spending on security in the region is already high—around 1.9 percent of GDP, or 7.4 percent of total public expenditure—and may be even greater where the military and subnational governments are involved.

Finance ministers and fiscal authorities need a full understanding of these costs, covering police, courts, prisons, and related institutions, to ensure funds are allocated efficiently to areas with the highest impact. They also need to monitor them in the same way they surveil other large spending tickets, evaluating their impact and pressing for results.

Transnational Crime Demands Regional Cooperation

Tackling crime solely at the national level isn’t sufficient. Criminal groups operate across borders, making isolated responses ineffective and fragmented. To address this shared challenge, countries must collaborate more closely to develop stronger, more coordinated solutions.

Recognizing the transnational nature of crime, the IDB’s Alliance for Security, Justice, and Development seeks to unite governments, civil society, and private-sector actors. This alliance not only aims to strengthen institutions and enhance cooperation but also supports public policies and mobilizes resources to implement evidence-based solutions that effectively combat organized crime and violence.

Regional collaboration is crucial for disrupting the sophisticated, interconnected networks of organized crime that undermine the rule of law and economic stability. By fostering unified efforts, institutions like the IMF and IDB alongside governments and civil society, have a critical role to play in this effort.

With people’s lives on the line, the true impact of these efforts must be felt on the ground—by creating safer streets, restoring hope in communities, and offering individuals a real chance to thrive economically in a future free from violence.

Ilan Goldfajn was elected president of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) on November 20, 2022, and took office on December 19, 2022. He previously served as director of the Western Hemisphere Department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2022, where he supported countries in implementing IMF programs and contributed to climate change policy dialogue. Earlier, he was an economist at the IMF from 1996 to 1999.

Rodrigo Valdés, a national of Chile, is director of the Western Hemisphere Department since May 2023. Prior to this, Rodrigo was a professor of economics in the School of Government at the Catholic University of Chile. He also held the position of Chile’s Minister of Finance from 2015 to 2017. At the IMF, he also was a deputy director of the IMF European and WHD departments.

Source: IMF Blog

IPS UN Bureau

  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 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

Is India Phasing Out Fossil Fuels Fast Enough To Achieve Its Emission Targets?

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Conferences, COP29, Economy & Trade, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Change

Wind turbines overlooking Vyas Chhatri, traditional architecture of Jasalmer district in Rajasthan. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

Wind turbines overlooking Vyas Chhatri, traditional architecture of Jasalmer district in Rajasthan. Credit: Athar Parvaiz/IPS

NEW DELHI, Nov 4 2024 (IPS) – While India continues to rely heavily on coal, the south Asian economic giant is also aggressively pushing renewable energy production, especially after the costs of renewable energy production have fallen drastically in recent years around the world.

But experts say that India—the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases (GHGs)—has to face many headwinds for achieving its net zero target by 2070 and before that, reaching the target of a 45 percent reduction in GHG emission intensity by 2030 from 2005 levels. 

According to the experts, addressing the gaps in policies and strategies are some of the main measures India needs to take for a rapid transition to renewable energy sources. But most of them believe phasing out fossil fuels such as coal appears to be a daunting task for India given its huge reliance on them. India ratified the Paris Agreement on Climate Change in 2016, committing to limit the global average temperature rise to below 2°C by the end of the century.

As part of its first Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), India had pledged to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission intensity of its economy by 33–35 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. In August 2022, the Indian government revised its NDCs, raising its ambition to a 45% reduction in GHG emission intensity by 2030 from 2005 levels.

The south Asian country has also pledged to become carbon-neutral or achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2070, an announcement made by the Indian government in 2021 during CoP 26 in UK. According to the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, Simon Stiell, Decarbonisation is the biggest transformation of the global economy of this century.

Coal to Stay ‘For India’s Development’  

Presently, the contribution of coal for India’s energy generation is 72 percent and accounts for 65 percent of its fossil fuel CO2 emissions. The contribution of coal for energy generation in India, say the experts, is not going to change anytime soon.

“Coal cannot be removed from India’s energy mix in the next 20 years. We require coal because we need a development-led transition, not a transition-led development,” said Amit Garg, a professor at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Ahmedabad-Gujarat.  “We can adopt new technologies and try new ways, but we in India cannot eradicate coal just yet.”

Anjan Kumar Sinha, an energy expert who is the technical director of Intertek, told IPS that energy security in India is currently dependent on coal and would take time for its phasing out given how the country is yet to be ready for a rapid phase-out of coal, which is currently extremely important for India’s energy security.

“In phasing it out, we have to improve flexible operations of coal-based plants for electricity dispatch, especially with increasing levels of renewable energy,” he said.

According to Sinha, coal being an important energy resource which India has, “we need to wash its sins” with a continuous increase in production of renewables.  India, Sinha said, “has to save itself… it can’t leave it to the rest of the world.”

India has been hailed for the progress the country has achieved in its clean energy transition in recent years. The Indian government aims to increase non-fossil fuel capacity to 500 GW and source 50 percent of its energy from renewables by 2030.

“[This] progress seems encouraging on several fronts. Today, India stands fourth globally in total renewable capacity, demonstrating a 400 percent growth over the last decade,” notes an article published by researchers of the Bharti Institute of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business.

But, despite this progress, the authors say that India faces a lot of challenges as it still remains heavily reliant on fossil fuels.

India’s Growth and Green Journey

With India’s economy expected to expand rapidly in the coming years, there will be an increase in demand for resources, and the environmental footprints will also increase. According to the latest World Energy Outlook report of the International Energy Agency (IEA), India’s energy consumption will increase by 30 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050, with carbon emissions from energy use rising by 32 percent and 72 percent in the same period.

If successful in meeting its climate commitments over the next seven years, India could offer a developmental model wherein a country continues to grow and prosper without significantly increasing its energy or carbon footprint. But the path ahead for India’s energy transition is full of significant challenges.

“This is one of the most challenging times for India. We have the challenge of growth, jobs and energy consumption, which we have to balance with environmental considerations,” B V R Subrahmanyam, the CEO of NITI Ayog, India’s top official think tank, was quoted as saying by India’s national daily, The Times of India, on September 11, 2024.

But he has emphasized that fossil fuels will continue to drive the country’s growth. “It is no longer about growth or sustainability, but growth and sustainability,” he was quoted as saying.

Experts also believe that there are hurdles along the road as the country seeks to phase out polluting energy sources.

According to this article published in Outlook magazine on October 30, uncertainties such as low renewable energy (RE) investments in recent years, land availability, high intermittency of renewables, higher costs of panels due to import duties and distribution companies that are tied up in long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) not buying new RE power are some of the major concerns.

“While there has been progress on deployment of electric vehicles in the country, upfront costs and a lack of reliable charging infrastructure pose challenges in scaling up the initiatives… for the industrial sector, fossilized manufacturing capacities will create decarbonisation challenges,” the article says.

Raghav Pachouri, associate director, Low Carbon Pathways and Modelling, Vasudha Foundation, highlighted how storage can play an important role in making energy transition successful.

“The success of the energy transition to renewable energy lies with the integration of storage. Current capacities are limited, and the quantum of requirements is huge.”

Moreover, Pachouri says, infrastructure for electric vehicles remains inadequate, with fewer than 2,000 public charging stations as of 2023.

IPS UN Bureau Report