The global push toward renewable energy, intended to reduce climate-aggravating emissions, has revealed how the environmental and social costs of extracting the minerals it requires fall disproportionately on local communities and ecosystems.  

Many argue that electromobility and renewable energy technologies will help mitigate climate change – but adopting them on a large scale would require a massive increase in the mining of minerals such as lithium, which are key to their development.  

According to the World Bank, the extraction of 3 billion tons of minerals over the next 30 years is crucial to powering the global energy transition. The International Energy Agency further predicts a four-fold increase in mineral extraction by 2040 to meet climate targets.  

However, the rush for these so-called “critical” minerals risks amplifying the very crises it seeks to help solve, exacerbating ecological degradation and perpetuating socio-economic injustice in the Global South. 

Q&A: What you need to know about clean energy and critical minerals supply chains

The very naming of these transition minerals as “critical” creates a false sense of urgency, reinforcing the current damaging system of extraction, and failing to consider the protection of communities, ecosystems, and species in areas of exploitation. 

While mainstream strategies emphasize technological fixes, a deeper examination reveals that, without addressing the broader implications of mineral extraction, the quest for a greener future may only deepen existing environmental and human rights violations.  

UN-backed principles 

The UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals was formed in April this year to identify common and voluntary principles that will help developing countries benefit from equitable, fair and sustainable management of these minerals.  

The Panel brings together strange bedfellows – not least China and the US – and will need to work hard to create consensus to identify principles and recommendations for governments, companies, investors and the international community on human rights, environmental protection, justice and equity in value chains, benefit-sharing, responsible investments, transparency and international collaboration. It must raise the level of ambition and listen directly to civil society organizations and rights-holders, including local communities.  

Our reflection on what the Panel cannot ignore points to three elements: a status quo approach to “development”; a high level of technological optimism concerning mining; and a lack of urgency regarding ecosystem limits and communities’ rights.  

Indonesia turns traditional Indigenous land into nickel industrial zone

First, we acknowledge that the Panel is under pressure from powerful actors, but it will need to resist the assertion that mining is always beneficial to the economic growth and prosperity of nations. This status-quo perspective reinforces the notion of unlimited natural resources for human consumption, mirroring the economic development promises of the early 20th century, which contributed to the current climate crisis.   

The Panel must not fail to consider the possibility of degrowth or the imposition of limits on mining activities that could lead to reduced material and energy consumption. Nor should it neglect other forms of traditional and local knowledge that may offer possibilities for alternative development. 

Then, on the impacts, pollution and other ecosystem disruptions caused by mining, it is consistently stated that assessments and evaluations are necessary – and that these can preserve ecosystem integrity.  

The Panel must acknowledge the irreversibility of certain mining impacts on ecosystems, which are already evident. This belies the optimistic view that all mining problems can be resolved through technology, a notion that is both false and unrealistic. What’s more, it undermines the precautionary principle, which calls for protective action from suspected harms, even before scientific proof exists.  

Finally, in the dominant narrative, transition minerals are found in “empty” places, deemed void of life, where only the resources to be extracted are counted. This ignores both the biodiversity and traditional communities that inhabit these areas.  

Indigenous rights at risk 

More than half of the minerals needed for the energy transition are found in or near indigenous territories, which are already facing the consequences of the climate and ecological crisis, such as extreme aridity, permanent water shortages and scarce water availability.  

These impacts may be increased by mining project pressures and mineral extractive activities, which are already facing the impacts of the climate and ecological crisis, such as extreme aridity, permanent water shortages or scarce water availability.  

It is essential to ensure respect for the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination; to obtain their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) before projects are begun; to carry out human rights and environmental due diligence; and to ensure not only remediation of impacts but also the ability of local people to maintain their own cultural, social, economic and political ways. 

Lithium tug of war: the US-China rivalry for Argentina’s white gold

In addition, current plans for the extraction of transition minerals are limited to the scale of the mining concession in question, without considering the cumulative impacts derived from others operating in the same area and ignoring the socioeconomic activities already taking place in these ecosystems.  

Instead, it is essential to ensure the bio-capacity of ecosystems to maintain their life-supporting functions and the diversity of uses by communities in territories, not just industrial ones. Decisions on mineral extraction should not be based solely on market demand, but also on the biophysical limits of ecosystems and, more sensibly, on the balance of water systems.    

The UN Panel has been established at a time when we can apply the lessons learned from the historical impacts of mining worldwide. This calls for the Panel to raise the level of ambition of its work by generating and advancing binding guidelines and mechanisms.  

Gathered this week in Nairobi, the Panel is working to set the rules of the game, defining principles and recommendations which will be officially presented in September during the UN General Assembly. It has a unique opportunity to oversee substantive changes to the global energy system – one that we cannot afford to miss. 

The post The UN can set a new course on “critical” transition minerals   appeared first on Climate Home News.

The regulation, which tasks the EU’s 27 member states with reviving their land and water habitats and planting billions of trees, was narrowly passed by EU environment ministers.

The controversial law only gained enough backing because Austria’s minister for climate action, Leonore Gewessler, defied her country’s leader and voted in favour of it, a decision which may be challenged legally. 

But, while celebrating the bill’s approval, climate campaigners and scientists warned that its ambition had been diluted and it must be implemented effectively to reverse the destruction of Europe’s natural carbon sinks.

EU warns “delaying tactics” have made plastic treaty deal “very difficult”

The law requires each EU country to rejuvenate 20% of their degraded land and water habitats by 2030 and all of them by 2050, and to plant three billion more trees across the bloc by 2030.

It also requires countries to restore 30% of their drained peatlands by 2030 and 50% by mid-century.

Peatlands that have been drained, largely for farming, forestry and peat extraction, are responsible for 5% of Europe’s total greenhouse gas emissions. 

Climate breakthrough

Belgium’s climate minister Zakia Khatattabi told Climate Home that the law’s passing is “not only a breakthrough for nature but also for the climate”, and would enable the EU to meet its emissions-cutting targets.

Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said that “without it, carbon neutrality in Europe would have been put beyond reach”.

The amount of carbon dioxide sucked in by Europe’s carbon sinks – including forests, peatlands, grassland, soil and oceans –  has been falling since 2010. For forests, the World Resources Institute blames logging for timber and biomass and more wildfires and pests for the decline.

The amount of carbon sucked in is shrinking (black line) when it needs to increase to meet targets for 2030 (orange dot) and 2050 (blue dot)

But the EU’s plan to meet its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 involves halting this decline and reversing it into a 15% increase on 2021 levels by 2030.

Jette Bredahl Jacobsen, vice-chair of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, told Climate Home the new nature law “can contribute substantially to this, as healthy ecosystems can store more carbon and are more resilient against climate change impacts”.

The law is extremely popular with the EU public, with 75% of people polled in six EU countries saying they agree with it and just 6% opposing.

Watered down

But farmer trade associations were fiercely against it, and it became a symbolic battleground between right-wing and populist parties on one side and defenders of the EU Green Deal on the other.

Several of the law’s strongest passages ended up diluted before it reached ministers for approval, including caveats added to an obligation for countries to prevent any “net loss” of urban green space and tree cover this decade.

A new clause was introduced to deter EU states from using funds from the Common Agricultural Policy or Common Fisheries Policy to finance nature restoration – raising questions as to where money to implement the law will come from.

And, most importantly, an obligation to restore peatlands that have been drained for farming – a major source of emissions – was weakened.

A peat bog under restoration in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, pictured in January 2022. (Photo: Imago Images/Rüdiger Wölk via Reuters)

The original regulation would have instructed countries to rewet 30% of peatlands drained for agricultural use by 2030 and 70% by 2050 – the most effective way of restoring them. 

But, as a concession to farmers, the final version of the nature law mandates rewetting just 7.5% of these peatlands by 2030 and 16.7% by 2050, with exceptions possible for actions such as replacing peatlands drained for agriculture with other uses.

Rewetting usually involves blocking drainage ditches. As well as reducing emissions, this helps an area adapt to climate change, protecting it from floods, and improving the water quality, soil and biodiversity.

But the Commission will also count other actions as peatland “restoration”, such as the partial raising of water tables, bans on the use of heavy machinery, tree removal, the reintroduction of peat-forming vegetation or fire prevention measures. 

That’s despite the European Commission’s own rulebook describing these measures as “supplementary to gain better results” and saying that “peatland restoration should always primarily focus on rewetting”.

Lessons from trade tensions targeting “overcapacity” in China’s cleantech industry

Where rewetting does take place, as with all restoration measures in the final version of the regulation, EU states will be obliged to prioritise action in particular areas known as Natura 2000 sites. These cover around 18% of the EU’s territory, and should already have been restored under existing legislation.  

Environmentalists maintain that the legislation still has tremendous potential, pointing to possible actions such as the restoration of seagrass meadows which cover less than 0.1% of the ocean floor but absorb more than 10% of its carbon.    

EU countries will now draft national nature restoration plans over the next two years showing how they intend to meet their targets, for assessment by the Commission.

(Reporting by Arthur Neslen; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Despite dilution, officials say new nature law can restore EU carbon sinks appeared first on Climate Home News.

In three vital and interrelated areas – climate, development and nature – the next UK government could play a significant role in driving progress at a critical time.

It needs to start office on day one with a plan that positions the UK ahead of key summits on those issues – summits that will have a critical bearing on people, planet, and future generations. The time to start preparing is now.

The NATO summit begins within days of the UK general election now planned for July 4. The year ends with G20 meetings in Brazil, a global biodiversity summit (COP16) in Colombia, and the COP29 climate conference in Azerbaijan. A new UK government could play an important role in rebuilding trust and make a positive contribution to the world by adopting far-sighted positions on climate, development and nature. 

On climate, the next government could immediately signal its intent by comprehensively stepping up its efforts to meet its own national climate commitments, after a period of drift and uncertainty. There is no more powerful message from the UK to the cause of global climate action than the country decisively implementing its own pledges, through concerted action on green energy, transport, infrastructure and land use.  

Progress at home needs to be matched in real time by leadership on the international stage in negotiating an appropriately ambitious and credible ‘new collective quantified goal’ on climate finance.

Rich nations meet $100bn climate finance goal – two years late

A strong finance outcome at COP29 would acknowledge the historic responsibility for climate change from some of the wealthiest nations, including the UK, while ensuring that all countries play their full part in mobilising the flows of public as well as private finance needed to transition to a 1.5 degree-aligned, resilient and nature-positive economy. Successful resolution of the finance negotiations this year in Baku would open up the possibility for a more ambitious round of climate action en route to COP30 in Belem, Brazil in November 2025. 

Development finance

On international development, the UK can move fast by upholding and restoring its development finance commitments, including to some of the world’s poorest people; by updating its toolkit to meet today’s interlinked development, climate and nature challenges; and by using all of the means at its disposal (including debt relief, multilateral development bank reform, and capital increases) to drive global financial architecture reform and a successful replenishment of the International Development Association 21 later this year.  

The UK can also lead the way in pressing for international support to be integrated and aligned behind countries’ own inclusive, green development plans; and by making the case for multilateral trade reform aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement.  

In addition, the UK has a particular responsibility to resume a global leadership role on debt relief, a role it last played in the early 2000s during the era of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. It could take legal and other action to unstick debt cancellation processes for some of the most indebted countries, by bringing private creditors to the table and brokering concerted action on debt relief at the G20.  

Global billionaires tax to fight climate change, hunger rises up political agenda

The UK should lend its political support to the Brazilian government’s laudable G20 initiative on tax reform, as well as its important work on climate and hunger; and support other promising efforts to raise revenue for development, such as levies on shipping and aviation. The next finance minister should consider the UK’s global role on these issues as being as centrally important to their legacy as issues of national economics; and ensure that the UK drives global progress on new flows of finance for climate and development, at the scale set out by economists Nick Stern and Vera Songwe in their 2022 report.   

Protect and restore nature

On nature, the UK should redouble its actions to protect and restore nature and biodiversity at home, including through pursuing more sustainable farming and land management. At the same time, the UK should use its influence and finance to drive global progress on the nature agenda, both in terrestrial ecosystems as well as the ocean. The goal here is to protect at least 30% of the planet by 2030 and to mobilise major flows of public and private finance to support countries, local communities and Indigenous Peoples to protect their ecosystems.

At the UN biodiversity conference in Colombia in October, the UK could assume a critical role on the global stage by making the case for the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems as fundamental to human life, to addressing the climate crisis, and as one of the most effective forms of pro-poor development assistance.   

At a deeply troubling and fractured time in multilateral affairs, revitalised global leadership from the next UK government on climate, development and nature could make a very constructive contribution to securing the better, fairer, more sustainable and more peaceful world which is still within our grasp to secure.   

 Editor’s note: The latest BBC analysis of opinion polls ahead of the July 4 general election in the UK shows the opposition Labour Party with 45% of voter support, while the ruling Conservative Party trails with 24%.

The post Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government appeared first on Climate Home News.

It is proposing to create the first United Nations expert group to “examine risks and opportunities” of solar radiation management (SRM), a suite of largely untested technologies aimed at dimming the sun.

The panel would be made up of experts appointed by member states of the UN’s environment programme (Unep) and representatives of international scientific bodies, according to a draft resolution submitted by Switzerland and seen by Climate Home.

Governments will negotiate and vote on the proposal at Unep’s meeting due to start at the end of February in Nairobi, Kenya. It has been formally endorsed by Senegal, Georgia, Monaco and Guinea.

A Swiss government spokesperson told Climate Home that SRM is “a new topic on the political agenda” and Switzerland is “committed to ensuring that states are informed about these technologies, in particular about possible risks and cross-border effects”.

Split scientific opinions

Solar geoengineering is a deeply contested topic and scientists are divided over whether it should be explored at all as a potential solution.

Ines Camilloni, a climatology professor at the University of Buenos Aires, welcomed Switzerland’s proposal, saying the UN “is in a good position to facilitate equitable, transparent, and inclusive discussions”.

“There is an urgent need to continue researching the benefits and risks of SRM to guide decisions around research activities and deployment”, she told Climate Home.

Shell accused of trying to wash hands of Nigerian oil spill mess

But Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, head of climate science at Climate Analytics, says he is concerned about that prospect.

“The risk of such an initiative is that it elevates SRM as a real solution and contributes to the normalisation of something that is still very premature and hypothetical from a scientific perspective”, he added. “You need to be careful about unintended consequences and consider the risks of opening a Pandora’s box”.

An open letter signed by more than 400 scientists in 2022 called for an international “non-use agreement” on solar geoengineering. It also said United Nations bodies, including Unep, “are all incapable of guaranteeing equitable and effective multilateral control over the deployment of solar geoengineering technologies at planetary scale”.

Poorly understood risks

Long touted as a futuristic climate hack, solar geoengineering has risen in prominence in recent years as the prospect  of curbing emissions enough to limit global warming to 1.5C has faded.

The technologies aim to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet’s surface. This could be achieved by pumping aerosols into the high atmosphere or by whitening clouds.

Its supporters say it could be a relatively cheap and fast way to counter extreme heat. But it would only temporarily reduce the impact of rising emissions, without tackling the root causes.

Argentine resistance hinders Milei’s forest and glacier destruction

The regional effects of manipulating the weather are hard to predict and large uncertainties over wider climate, social and economic implications remain.

Solar geoengineering could “introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well-understood”, the IPCC’s scientists said in their latest assessment of climate science.

Its critics argue that putting the SRM option on the table undermines existing climate policies and relieves pressure on polluters to reduce emissions as quickly as possible. There are also questions about how long this technology would be needed and what happens after it is stopped.

Space for discussion

In its proposal to the Unep assembly, Switzerland acknowledges the “potential global risks and adverse impacts”.

The 25-people-strong group would first be tasked with writing a comprehensive scientific report on solar geoengineering.

But the main goal would be to establish “a space for an informed discussion” about research on the potential use of SRM, giving the possibility for future decisions on how that should be governed, according to an accompanying technical note seen by Climate Home.

It is not the first time Switzerland brings a resolution on solar geoengineering to the Unep summit. In 2019, its attempt to get countries to agree to the development of a governance framework failed as a result of opposition from Donald Trump’s USA and Saudi Arabia – who didn’t want restrictions on geoengineering.

Calls for more research

Last year, Unep produced an “independent expert review” of the subject, concluding that “far more research” is needed “before any consideration for potential deployment” of SRM.

A Unep spokesperson said the exact characteristics of the group proposed by Switzerland would need to be negotiated at the upcoming summit. But, if approved, it would differ from any previous panel “because it would have a clear mandate from member states” with experts directly appointed by them.

Problems mount for Sahara gas pipeline, leaving Nigerian taxpayers at risk

Ines Camilloni was one of the authors of last year’s UNEP report. She says “managing the risks of climate change requires a portfolio of policy responses”, of which mitigation and adaptation would be the most important and urgent.

But she added that “SRM has been proposed as a complementary approach” and more research is needed to weigh its benefits and risks against the impact of adverse climate scenarios.

A panel of leaders called the Overshoot Commission also recommended last year that governments expand research into solar geoengineering while placing a moratorium on large-scale experiments outdoors. 

A rogue SRM experiment conducted by a US startup in Mexico led the Mexican government to announce a ban on solar geoengineering in January 2023.

‘Precautionary approach’

Mary Church, a campaigner at the CEnter for International Environmental Law, says “it’s hard to see what could be gained from establishing an expert group under Unep”.

“There’s a real risk that such a group could undermine the existing regulatory framework and inadvertently provide legitimacy for solar geoengineering technology development and experimentation”.

Countries should instead “take a precautionary approach, commit to non-use, and prioritise a fast, fair and funded phase out of fossil fuels”, she added.

The post Switzerland proposes first UN expert group on solar geoengineering appeared first on Climate Home News.

The plan, announced in late August by the country’s Minister of Transportation, Renan Filho, was met with suspicion by environmentalists who are familiar with the fund’s guidelines.

During a press conference announcing new infrastructure investments, Filho said he plans to pitch the fund’s governing board a project to pave BR319, a road that cuts through the Amazon forest and connects two major cities in the north of Brazil — Manaus and Porto Velho. 

But environmentalists argue that this is not the kind of project that the fund is supposed to support. 

“The Amazon Fund is meant to keep the forest standing, to maintain its biodiversity, and to fight climate change. I don’t see its resources being used for paving. It would be completely incompatible with its guidelines,” says Sila Mesquita, president of the NGO Amazon Working Group and current representative of civil organisations in the Amazon Fund committee. 

One of the fund’s creators, forest scientist Tasso Azevedo also disagrees with the Ministry of Transportation’s plan. 

“I don’t think it makes any sense. This project does not fit into any of the fund’s planned support lines,” says Azevedo, currently coordinator at MapBiomas, an initiative to monitor land use in Brazil developed by a network of universities, NGOs, and technology companies. 

Created in 2008, the Amazon Fund has over $1.2 billion available for projects that prevent, monitor and combat deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. The fund gets its money mainly from its largest donors — Norway, Germany and state-owned oil company Petrobras.

Controversial comeback

In 2019, the Amazon Fund was virtually paralysed by former president Jair Bolsonaro, who dissolved the committee that sets guidelines on how the money should be spent. 

Because of this political move, the money was frozen for over three years, since new projects could not be analysed. Donor countries Norway and Germany also suspended new contributions during Bolsonaro’s term. 

Revived by president Lula on his first day in the office, new potential investors have lined up.

Last week, Denmark announced a donation of $22 million, joining the UK, USA, Switzerland, and the EU, all of which advertised new contributions since Lula reinstated the fund. 

The initiative had funded 102 projects amounting to over $360 million until it was paralysed by Bolsonaro. 

But none of the supported projects were related to road infrastructure, according to the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), which manages the fund. 

“So far, the BNDES has not received any requests for financing a road infrastructure project using resources from the Amazon Fund,” BNDES told Climate Home News.

New guidelines

The bank also highlighted that any requests are processed “in accordance with the strategic vision, guidelines and focuses” outlined in the 2023-25 ​​Biennium, a new set of guidelines created by the Amazon Fund’s Guiding Committee. 

The new rules for how the money should be spent in the next two years were set by a committee formed by representatives of NGOs, environmental agencies and governmental institutions such as Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Environment. 

One of the members of this committee, Sila Mesquita, believes that the guidelines do not align with the project presented by the Ministry of Transportation.

The ministry, however, argues that the paving of BR319 would turn the road into the world’s “most sustainable highway” and would allow easier access for police patrols to monitor and prevent deforestation. 

“Our commitment, in addition to guaranteeing economic and social development by granting citizens the right to come and go, is also to ensure that the BR319 is a model in terms of environmental conservation,” the Ministry of Transportation told Climate Home News. 

Road through the rainforest

The BR319 is a federal highway that serves as the only link between two large states in the North of Brazil: Amazonas and Rondônia. 

Built during the 1970s, the road was delivered completely paved, but was closed a decade later due to lack of maintenance. Since then, only branches of the highway are paved and allow for regular traffic.

According to BR-319 Observatory, a collective of organisations that operate in the highway’s area, re-paving the road without conservation measures and proper consultation to indigenous communities can be prejudicial to the Amazon and encourage deforestation. 

The BR319 cuts through several conservation areas, including indigenous territories. Its indirect impact spans an ever larger perimeter

Several studies show that proximity to transportation networks is a major proximate driver of deforestation in the Amazon. Recent research has pointed out that 95% of the deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon happens within 5.5 km of a legal or illegal road. Considering only the official road network, most of the deforestation happens within 50 km of the nearest road. 

The complete paving of BR319, planned by the current Ministry of Transportation, still depends on several approvals from the Brazilian Institute for the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (Ibama).

“For this road to be sustainable, like the government says, it needs to be beneficial for all those conservation parks and indigenous territories that it cuts through. We have to ask the people who live there what is sustainable for them. It’s not about being for or against the paving of a road: it’s about taking into consideration science, technology and the local communities as well,” says Sila Mesquita.

The post Brazilian government eyes money from Amazon Fund for controversial road appeared first on Climate Home News.

The Vaca Muerta Sur terminal could bring a surge in Argentina’s oil and gas exports, unlocking the Vaca Muerta field, which holds the world’s second-largest shale gas reserves and the fourth-largest shale oil reserve.

The terminal’s construction site in the San Matías gulf is a hotspot for marine biodiversity and a popular site for whale-watching.

Relevant authorities in Río Negro province support the project, citing economic benefits. They are holding public hearings to approve the terminal’s environmental studies.

Campaigners held demonstrations against the project, accusing the authorities of a lack of transparency and shutting down critics.

Ahead of elections, Argentina’s leaders wrap fossil fuels in the flag

According to the Argentine Institute of Oil and Gas (IAPG), Vaca Muerta could produce three times more oil and gas than it does today. It is limited mostly by a lack of infrastructure and investments. The Vaca Muerta Sur terminal is a key piece of infrastructure to unlock the field’s potential.

The coalition of climate NGOs Global Gas and Oil Network called Vaca Muerta a “carbon bomb”, citing its potential to release up to 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere across its lifetime.

The EU, in particular, has shown interest in the Argentina’s gas supplies. In July, the bloc signed an agreement with the country to work on a “stable delivery” of gas from Vaca Muerta to Europe. Brazil has also contributed funds to unlock Vaca Muerta’s exports.

Push from local government

The export terminal is a key piece of YPF’s plan to develop the Vaca Muerta field, which has received overwhelming support across political factions. Regional decision-makers in particular have been instrumental to advance the project.

Provincial regulations have prohibited hydrocarbon projects in the San Matías gulf since the 90s, but in 2022 regulators reversed the provincial legislation to allow YPF to develop the terminal.

Last week, the Sierra Grande municipality held public hearings where YPF presented environmental impact studies for the terminal and the associated 570 km pipeline. 

Cristian Fernandez, from the legal department at the Argentine Foundation of Natural Resources (FARN), criticised the environmental studies submitted by YPF. He said there is no contingency plan for pipeline leaks and oil spills.

Protesters on the coast of Río Negro during the Second Plurinational Encounter, which took place in March 2023. (Photo: Carolina Blumenkranc)

But local authorities defended the project, and claimed to have risks under control. Sierra Grande’s mayor, Renzo Tamburini, said the project would help develop the region.

Dina Migani, Secretary of the Environment and Climate Change of Río Negro province, also voiced her support for the project and played down concerns, despite the project’s proximity to whale transit routes.

“In the survey of the entire trace there are no indigenous lands, and the oil monobuoy is 7km away, near the route where the right whales (Eubalaena australis) transit, as happens in Chubut below Puerto Madryn,” Migani told Climate Home.

Shutting down opposition

Fabricio DiGiacomo, a resident in the neighbouring Las Grutas community registered at the public hearing, voiced his opposition to the project, but was not allowed to enter the session. 

“Vaca Muerta has had, on average, about five (oil-spilling) accidents per day since it began its operations, so I do not see how they are capable of defending it”, added DiGiacomo, who rejected the public audience for being “fraudulent”.

The Argentine Association of Environmental Lawyers said in a statement they would submit a legal challenge to the process, which they claimed lacked open access to information and left opposers out of the hearings in an “unjustified” way.

They also claimed that, during the hearings, demonstrators received threats and intimidation from police and supporters of the project.

Soy, beef and gold gangsters: Why Bolivia and Venezuela won’t protect the Amazon

Pablo Lada, a local activist from the neighbouring province of Chubut, says that other nearby communities were left out of the conversation on the San Matías gulf, San José gulf and Golfo Nuevo — which all encompass the Valdés Peninsula, a World Heritage Site.

Dina Migani, from Río Negro’s provincial Ministry of the Environment defended the process and said registrations were open to all residents of Sierra Grande.

Fragile site for biodiversity

The Vaca Muerta Sur terminal is meant to connect the Vaca Muerta shale fields through a 570 km pipeline to the sea. This would allow for Argentina to enter the international market as a major oil and gas exporter.

But the export terminal needed for this to happen is located in a fragile site for biodiversity, according to experts. 

Marine species such as right whales, dolphins and killer whales could be affected by oil spills and shipping traffic, said Raúl González, marine biologist from the National University of Comahue.

Southern Right Whale specimens tracked by scientists in the San Matías gulf. Organised by name and colour, they are Aguamarina (red), Zafiro (yellow), Topacio (green), Fluorita (light blue), Coral (blue) and Turquesa (pink). Source: Siguiendo Ballenas.

The impacts to biodiversity, González said, depend on the contingency plans for oil spills and the routes selected for shipping transit.

The Argentine Association of Whaling Guides called for the cessation of the project, citing Argentina’s commitment to the Cop15 biodiversity pact to protect 30% of oceans by 2030.

In a letter sent to provincial legislators, a coalition of environmental NGOs said pushing the terminal “is to condemn the present and future of current and future generations”.

This story was edited on August 31, 2023, to amend Fabricio DiGiacomo’s residence.

The post ‘Carbon bomb’ in Argentina gets push from local government appeared first on Climate Home News.

The stalemate is dragging on as attempts to formally discuss a precautionary suspension of mining activities have been thwarted by nations in favour of exploiting the ocean’s mineral resources.

Over a dozen countries spearheaded by Chile, Costa Rica and France want to officially debate for the first time in history the possibility to halt deep-sea mining until its full impact on the ocean’s biodiversity is understood.

Hervè Berville, the French Minister for Marine Affairs, told the Assembly on Wednesday that the world “must not and cannot embark on a new industrial activity without measuring the consequences and taking the risk of irreversible damage”.

For the past decade, the mining industry has proposed to extract minerals from the deep seabed that can later be used to make batteries for electric vehicles.

However, the potential impacts of mining the ocean floor are largely unknown, putting biodiversity at risk. More than 750 marine scientists signed an open letter calling for a ban on the practice until robust scientific evidence can back it up.

High Seas Treaty exempts deep-sea mining from stricter environmental rules

Mining industry pushback

China and the island-state of Nauru have so far blocked the motion for a moratorium discussion, preventing agreement over the agenda. Both countries sponsor companies pushing for the exploitation of seabed minerals. Mexico also initially opposed but then retracted.

Gina Guillén, head of the Costa Rican delegation and one of the leaders of the coalition calling for a pause on mining, said one sole country was fiercely blocking the agenda item, even after offering a lighter discussion than expected.

“Just one country is opposing (the agenda item on the discussion). We hope it does happen. One country can’t hijack the most important body of the (ISA) just for being a big economy. That goes against all principles of multilateralism,” Guillén said.

‘We are not ready’: Divisions deepen over rush to finalise deep sea mining rules

Calls for a so-called moratorium have been gathering pace during the annual meeting of the ISA, the little-known UN body tasked with regulating the vast ocean floor in international waters.

This year’s week-long summit, set to end on Friday, comes at a pivotal time. Any member state could theoretically apply for a full-blown mining contract on behalf of a company, after a deadline triggered by Nauru lapsed earlier in July.

So far the ISA has only handed out ‘exploration’ permits which do not allow commercial exploitation of the minerals.

Mining code delayed

But several operators have already been exploring an area of the Pacific Ocean floor known as the Clarion Clipperton Zone. The region is rich in polymetallic nodules containing nickel, cobalt, copper and manganese, which are critical for manufacturing electric vehicles.

Among the most active is Canada-based start-up The Metals Company, whose license is sponsored by Nauru. After the island nation triggered an obscure provision two years ago, the ISA accelerated the pace of its negotiations to establish mining rules before a July 9th, 2023.

The Metals Company, and its partner Nauru, hoped to begin industrial-scale mining as early as 2024, following the expected approval of a mining code.

But their ambitions were cut back last week after the ISA delayed timeline for the regulations. The 36 members of the body’s council gave until 2025 to adopt the mining code.

It is now a question of when — rather than if — commercial scale nodule collection will begin. https://t.co/oWI8AOZPBR

— gerard barron (@gtbgtb) July 24, 2023

Blow to industry

Nauru’s president Russ Joseph Kun expressed disappointment on Wednesday that the ISA did not complete the process within the two-year deadline.

Member states in fact could still apply for a mining licence despite the rules not being in place. This would push the body into uncharted territory without clear guidelines on how such a request would be examined.

The Metals Company said it reserves the right to submit an application in the absence of a mining code. “It is now a question of when — rather than if — commercial-scale nodule collection will begin”, its CEO Gerard Barron said in a statement.

But the listed company’s stock tumbled by over 20% this week, hinting at investors’ diminishing confidence in its mining prospects.

Guillén from Costa Rica said approving the new 2025 deadline was “critical”. “They wanted a 2024 deadline, but we said no way,” she said.

Moratorium discussion

Campaigners opposed to deep-sea mining viewed the new 2025 deadline for the mining code with optimism but repeated their pleas for a moratorium, which would block any attempt to start commercial operations.

“This unprecedented agenda fight comes as a coalition of nations from Latin America, the Pacific and Europe try and wrangle the debate away from serving narrow corporate interests towards the public good”, said Louisa Casson from Greenpeace, who is attending the talks in Jamaica.

If the agenda is approved, it would mark the first time countries hold a formal discussion on suspending deep sea mining, although this discussion would not necessarily lead to a moratorium.

Still, Gillén said this is an important precedent, and said “we cannot destroy the seabed by taking a rushed decision”.

Last year, countries agreed to a treaty for the high seas, which creates international marine protected areas. However, this milestone could be undermined if deep sea talks end up with a bad deal, the Costa Rican negotiator added.

“Even after having agreed to the (high seas) treaty, if we don’t have strong safeguards for the seabed in those same areas, then we won’t have achieved anything,” Guillén said.

The post UN deep-sea mining talks deadlocked over agenda clash appeared first on Climate Home News.

As part of the package, Brazil’s new leader reinstated the Amazon Fund, a $1.2 billion fund to protect of the world’s largest rainforest, after a three-year period of inactivity.  

Donors Germany and Norway suspended transfers to the fund in 2019, under the previous government of Jair Bolsonaro, after the former president unilaterally suspended the board of directors and the technical committee of the fund.

On Monday, Lula reinstated the fund’s governing body, which Norwegian environment minister Espen Barth Eide said “allows for an immediate reactivation of the fund”.  The UK’s environment minister Therese Coffey said the UK was “seriously looking at” joining the fund.

Destruction of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna soars for third year in a row

The fund, which was established during Lula’s second term in 2008, supports 102 conservation projects in the Amazon, among them forests managed by indigenous people and small-scale farms. 

Among the first executive mandates, Brazil’s new president also moved the Rural Environmental Registry —which tracks all rural land-ownership— from the agriculture to the environment ministry, extinguished the possibility of conciliating environmental fines and reactivated a plan to prevent and control deforestation in the Amazon. 

“There is still a long way to go, but what we’ve seen at the beginning of this mandate is a right start and demonstrates the importance that the issue has gained on Lula’s agenda,” said Marcio Astrini, executive secretary of the Brazilian NGO Climate Observatory. 

Green promises 

Lula was sworn into office for a third term on Sunday, after defeating rightwing incumbent Bolsonaro by a thin margin in October’s general election. Bolsonaro’s policies led to a 60% increase in deforestation in the Amazon.

Brazil’s new president promised to achieve zero deforestation in the Amazon and 100% renewable electricity during his inaugural speech, adding “Brazil does not need to cut down forests to keep and expand its strategic agricultural frontier”.

“The world expects Brazil to once again become a leader in tackling the climate crisis and an example of a socially and environmentally responsible country, capable of promoting economic growth with income distribution,” he said.

Lula will update Brazil’s ‘insufficient’ climate plans if elected: advisor

Lula appointed former environment minister and activist Marina Silva to once again lead the country’s green efforts. He also created the Ministry of Indigenous Peoples, to be led by the influential Amazonian leader Sônia Guajajara.

The new government’s environment team is promising, said Astrini, but he also warned that Lula will have to negotiate without a majority in Congress, which is dominated by legislators linked to Bolsonaro’s party and to the “ruralist” movement defending agribusiness in the Amazon.

A package of three Bolsonaro-era bills being discussed in Congress could trump Lula’s efforts to control deforestation in the Amazon. These projects would respectively allow for the relaxed use of pesticides, land-grabbing in public forests and weaker regulations for environmental permits.

“Our current Congress is extremely hostile to indigenous and environmental affairs. We have grown used to that. We need a government that defends the environment and that can face that Congress,” said Astrini.

This article was updated on 4 January to add that the UK is considering joining the fund

The post Lula revives $1 billion Amazon Fund and environmental protections appeared first on Climate Home News.

As delegates trudged through the snow, it looked like Copenhagen for most of the two weeks. World leaders weren’t invited and on Tuesday night, more than 60 negotiators from developing countries stormed out of finance talks. Ministers arrived on Thursday with a mountain to climb.

But climb it they did! In the early hours of Monday morning, China’s environment minister Huang Runqiu banged his gavel down on the Kunming-Montreal agreement. There were strong complaints from some African countries, led by the rainforest-rich Democratic Republic of Congo, but the deal was done.

They agreed to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030, to mobilise $200bn for nature protection, set up a new nature fund under the Global Environment Facility and get rid of at least $500bn a year worth of nature-harming subsidies by 2030.

Like the Paris agreement, it is voluntary. Nobody will force governments to protect anything and there’s no guarantee the sum of their individual pledges will add up to any of the targets above. But it’s far better than most nature-watchers were expecting.

This week’s stories

• Momentum grows towards 2050 zero carbon shipping target
• ‘Kunming-Montreal’ deal sets up new fund for biodiversity by 2023
• Cop15 global nature deal passes despite DR Congo’s objection
• Mexico’s new climate plan is worse than its old one, analysts say

Sweating for sweets

In India, we’ve continued our series on how climate change is worsening the lives of India’s sugar farmers. A 46C heatwave is bad enough from an air-conditioned office. It’s quite another if you’re working 16 hours a day in a sugar field. Even worse if you’re female and expected to do housework on top of that and lift heavy bundles of sugarcane while pregnant.

The sugar grown in these fields is sold to big companies like Nestlé, Coca Cola and Pepsi. Teenager Dhanvir Kumar, who joins in the harvest on his family farm, had an uncomfortable message for those with a sweet tooth. “We grow sugar but can’t afford to buy sugar,” he said, “drinking tea with sugar is like a crime.”

The human cost of sugar

• Cost of a KitKat: Big brands leave sugar farmers at the mercy of climate extremes
• India’s female cane cutters face child marriage and hysterectomy
• Migrant labourers suffer exploitation in India’s sugar fields
• India’s sugarcane farmers struggle to cope with droughts and floods

The post Breakthrough for nature protection – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

Destruction of native vegetation rose by a quarter to 10,689 square kilometers (4,127 square miles) – an area larger than Lebanon. The data from space research agency Inpe is for the 12 months through to July 2022, compared with the same period the previous year.

The Cerrado, the world’s most species-rich savanna, has given way to Brazil’s expanding agricultural frontier for decades. Roughly half of the savanna’s vegetation has already been destroyed, with much of it converted to farms and ranches.

When far-right president Jair Bolsonaro came to power in 2019, deforestation in the Cerrado was at its lowest point for decades. It increased in every year of his time in office. Deforestation in the Amazon rainforest rose too.

Deforestation in the Cerrado has risen in Bolsonaro’s time in power, although it remains lower than previous decades. (Photo: INPE)

Bolsonaro will be replaced by left-winger Lula Ignacio da Silva in January, who has promised to combat deforestation and reduce it to zero in the Amazon rainforest.

Trade levers

The European Union recently agreed on a law to prohibit companies from selling agricultural products linked to deforestation, which would apply to the Amazon rainforest but excluded much of the Cerrado.

Asked about rising Cerrado destruction, EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevicius said protections could be expanded.

“We have a review clause in just one year, we will have a look at it,” he said in an interview at the UN’s Cop15 nature summit in Montreal. “If we see patterns shifting to other ecosystems, we will be able to react relatively quickly.”

Governments split on ditching nature-harming subsidies in Montreal

Countries at Cop15 aim to strike a deal to protect areas rich in biodiversity like the Cerrado. But with the summit set to end on 19 December, negotiators still disagree on some 200 points, according to conference documents.

“What we eat and how we produce our food are the main drivers of this large-scale obliteration,” said Jean-Francois Timmers, a policy expert for environmental advocates WWF.

“We need Cop15 negotiators to prioritise ending deforestation and conversion in areas where the yearly rate of ecosystem losses prove alarming, like the Cerrado.”

The post Destruction of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna soars for third year in a row appeared first on Climate Home News.

A report commissioned by Business for Nature estimates $1.8 trillion is spent each year on subsidising destructive activities for nature such as the growth of fossil fuels, monocultures and overfishing.

The European Union has backed a proposal at the Cop15 biodiversity summit to redirect harmful subsidies towards activities that protect nature, as well as eliminating harmful subsidies by 2025.  

“As a priority, existing resources need to be used more effectively, including by aligning all financial flows with nature-positive objectives and by addressing harmful subsidies,” said the European bloc in a statement. 

UN nature pact nears its ‘Copenhagen or Paris’ moment

Countries like India and Japan have opposed entirely eradicating subsidies. India’s lead negotiator, Vinod Matur, told Carbon Copy the country’s farmers “who are poor and disadvantaged need both social and economic support”. Japan pushed to remove references to agricultural and fishing subsidies in the lead up to the negotiations.

Argentina, one of the world’s largest meat producers, supported the elimination of harmful subsidies but questioned the world’s capacity to actually redirect them, considering it a form of “creative accounting” to justify current subsidies. 

One Latin American negotiator, who wished to remain anonymous criticised the EU’s position. “We think the situation is concerning. We think the lack of flexibility of some developed countries is particularly worrying,” they said.

Sweating the small stuff

It is a key battleground this week when the issue is formally discussed in plenary negotiations, said Costa Rica’s lead negotiator Eugenia Arguedas. Costa Rica is chairing a coalition to protect 30% of the planet’s land and water ecosystems by 2030.

Li Lin, senior director of policy and advocacy at WWF, added that countries focused on “minutiae” during the first week of talks, leaving the “big-ticket items” to the second week. “They have left themselves a lot to do in the next few days,” he said.

Almost 200 countries have gathered in Montreal to negotiate the world’s strategy to reverse biodiversity loss and protect the globe’s frail remaining ecosystems, which are key to stopping climate change.

A recent UN scientific report warned that at least a million species are threatened with extinction, an “unprecedented” decline in all of human history.  

Opening the talks, UN secretary general Antonio Guterres said that divesting harmful subsidies is one of the key outcomes expected.

“[We need a deal] that addresses the root causes of this destruction — harmful subsidies, misdirected investment, unsustainable food systems, and wider patterns of consumption and production,” Guterres said.

Observers agreed that this will be one of the main clashing points, as it has been during the previous negotiations leading up to the Montreal summit. But the head of IUCN’s forests and land team Carole Saint-Laurent said these redirected subsidies could be a fresh source of resources.

“We see tremendous potential in redirecting harmful subsidies to investments in restoration of ecosystems,” said Saint-Laurent, who added this could become a “win-win” for all countries.

Overfishing breakthrough

Countries made some progress in June, when the World Trade Organization (WTO) reached an agreement to ban certain kinds of unsustainable fishing subsidies, an issue that had stalled since 2011.

For the first time, countries agreed to ban subsidies for unregulated fisheries, fisheries targeting overfished stocks and fisheries in the “unregulated” high seas. Now, two thirds of WTO member states need to formally accept the agreement and start implementing it.

World leaders not invited to attend critical UN biodiversity summit

But after almost two years of online and in-person negotiations and with only a week left to reach a successful outcome, observers have also warned of the risk of not reaching an agreement in Montreal.

Campaigners have also called out delegates on the slow progress in other topics, such as a mechanism to monitor each country’s actions to meet the targets.

“Negotiators look to be taking a hatchet to the ratchet here in Montreal. We are sleepwalking into repeating the mistakes we made in Aichi [where the last deal was struck in 2010]. We are at risk of having vague commitments with no substance,” said Guido Broekhoven, Head of Policy Research and Development at WWF.

The post Governments split on ditching nature-harming subsidies in Montreal appeared first on Climate Home News.

After a two-year delay and a change of location, the UN biodiversity summit aims to halt nature loss by 2030 and restore ecosystems. It could either be a success like the signing of the Paris Agreement or a dramatic failure like the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen.

“Anything can happen. It would be terrible if we had a ‘Copenhagen’ because we would lose a golden opportunity to protect nature,” said Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, CEO of the Global Environmental Facility, the largest funder of biodiversity protection. 

Countries are set to define targets to stop biodiversity loss for the next ten years, with a coalition of more than a hundred nations calling to protect 30% of all land and ocean ecosystems by 2030. Big forested countries such as China, Brazil and Indonesia are yet to join the coalition.

A draft prepared in the lead up to the event remains disputed. Initially the text was “technically quite good” said Brian O’Donnell, director of the advocacy organization Campaign for Nature. But “we’ve had two years of online negotiations. What started as a very good framework has ended up almost all in square brackets” – indicating a lack of consensus.

Leadership vacuum

The meeting was originally scheduled to take place in 2020 in Kunming, China, but was repeatedly delayed over Covid concerns. Eventually Montreal offered to take over as host city. China keeps the presidency of the talks.

China has not officially invited world leaders. It fell to UN biodiversity chief Elizabeth Maruma Mrema to urge them to attend the event instead of the football World Cup, which is taking place in Qatar at the same time.

Scientists warn that a million species are threatened with extinction, due to the climate crisis and other threats like pollution and deforestation.

Analysis: What was decided at Cop27 climate talks in Sharm el-Sheikh?

Addressing the issue, however, is also a form of climate action, said Kiliparti Ramakrishna, senior advisor on ocean and climate policy at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. “Nature-based solutions are directly connected with biodiversity and yet we treat [climate and biodiversity] separately. That is not good,” he said.

There were some signs of that changing when Cop27 talks concluded in Egypt on Sunday. In a first for the UN climate process, the Sharm el-Sheikh Implentation Plan encouraged countries to consider “nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based approaches” to climate action.

In the past decade, countries agreed to a ten-year plan called the Aichi targets, aimed at halting biodiversity loss. A UN summary report shows countries failed to meet a single one of those targets.

“(Countries) set these strategies only once a decade. The past strategy failed and so this is the time to get it right. Biodiversity is declining too rapidly,” said O’Donnell. 

Funding gap

Rodríguez explained the lack of sufficient funds was one of the main reasons for the failure of the Aichi targets. That will be key this time around, both in setting up the agreement but also in its implementation.

Even if an agreement is reached, “it’s still just paper”, said Rodriguez. “Implementing (the targets) requires public policies and strong institutions. But many countries require investments to build those capacities in the first place,” he added.

The latest draft includes the target of mobilizing $200 billion per year, “including new, additional and effective financial resources”. To Ramakrishna, the Montreal summit “could be a Paris moment if we get the resolution on finance”. 

Crucially, a deal on finance must phase out subsidies for nature-destructive practices, Rodriguez said. This was also one of the Aichi targets, but “relatively few countries have taken steps even to identify incentives that harm biodiversity,” the UN summary report says. 

“Harmful subsidies far outweigh positive incentives in areas such as fisheries and the control of deforestation,” adds the report. The draft deal includes the goal of reducing these subsidies by $500 billion per year.

Other critical issues remain contested, among them the use of genetic resources. African countries have called on developed nations to pay for genetic information on their biodiversity, which is used in industries such as pharmaceutical companies.  

However, in the preliminary round of negotiations in Nairobi this year, countries did not agree on this issue.

The post UN nature pact nears its ‘Copenhagen or Paris’ moment appeared first on Climate Home News.

Well unfortunately, the same holds true when the kids are Chinese president Xi Jinping and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and the project is saving the world’s wildlife and the forests and carbon that go with it.

After four years of talks, the CBD nature summit is just two months away. But the UN’s biodiversity chief told Climate Home this week that “as the plans go, we may not have the heads of state and government”.

Because of Covid-19 restrictions, the talks have been moved from China’s Kunming to Canada’s Montreal but it’s still up to China to send out the invites.

Xi is not expected to show up amid Covid fears and deteriorating relations with Canada over the arrest of a Huawei executive.

Without leaders, the event risks being ignored and overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and even the football world cup.

This week’s news…

• Lula will update Brazil’s ‘insufficient’ climate plans if elected: advisor
• EU outlines funding options to help climate victims recover
• Ugandan police ‘brutally arrest’ anti-pipeline protesters outside EU embassy
• World leaders not invited to attend critical UN biodiversity summit
• Demand response: A win-win solution to climate and energy price crises
• EU ministers back €20 billion plan to ditch Russian fossil fuels
• As Brazil’s Congress swings further right, environmentalists pin hopes on Lula

A new Brazilian government would be just the boost the talks need but nature-lovers will have to bite their nails all month after leftist Lula failed to defeat Amazon-destroying Jair Bolsonaro in the first round.

Lula is still the favourite to win on 30 October though and his environmental spokesperson told Climate Home this week that Brazil will update its “insufficient” climate plan with a focus on saving the Amazon.

“Rather than trudging in the fossil-fuel footsteps of those who went before, we can leapfrog this dirty energy and embrace the benefits of clean power”

Kenya’s new president William Ruto will not join African nations’ dash for gas

The post Odd couple bungle nature talks – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

The biodiversity conference, or Cop15, is a moment for countries to agree on a global framework to halt the destruction of nature by the end of this decade. Negotiators meet in Montreal, Canada, 7-19 December, to finalise the deal, widely billed as the “Paris Agreement for nature”.

But after four years of talks, the issue has failed to gain the attention of world leaders. First the coronavirus pandemic, then Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and soaring inflation pushed nature conservation down the agenda.

That is unlikely to change as China, which presides over the talks, hasn’t invited political leaders to attend the conference. President Xi Jinping isn’t expected to show up amid deteriorating relations with host Canada.

“As the plans go, we may not have the heads of state and government,” Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, head of UN Biodiversity, told Climate Home News during an event at think tank Chatham House in London.

But “pressure from many quarters” is building on China and Canada to reconsider, she added.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Campaigners have warned that without political leadership, the talks risk collapsing with no deal.

The draft deal outlines 21 targets but nearly all the text remains disputed. The version dated 26 June has more than 900 pairs of square brackets, enclosing proposed language that hasn’t got consensus.

Fraught relations

China officially presides over the negotiations but handed over the hosting to Canada because of Beijing’s zero-Covid policy. The invitation list is officially China’s call.

Relations between the two countries have been fraught ever since Canadian authorities arrested Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in 2018, at the request of the US, for allegedly violating sanctions against Iran.

Days later, China arrested two Canadian nationals on accusations of spying. The detainees on both sides were allowed to return home in September 2021 but tensions remain high.

A spokesperson for the Canadian government didn’t address Climate Home’s question on whether world leaders would be invited.

Eyes on Trudeau

Campaigners are urging Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau to gather leaders on the sidelines of the summit, regardless of what China decides.

“Trudeau cannot and should not allow a global political failure of these negotiations in his own watch and in his own country,” Oscar Soria, Avaaz’s campaign director, told Climate Home

“Right now, this conference is barely known in certain diplomatic circles and despite some isolated announcements in the last UN general assembly, the overall process is lacking momentum,” he said. Without “the highest political attention,” the summit risked being further overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and even the football World Cup.

“Biodiversity cannot be an afterthought, it cannot be a low-priority issues. Nature is the foundation of our economy, our food, and our survival,” Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, told Climate Home.

By attending Cop15, heads of state will “significantly improve the likelihood an ambitious global agreement can be reached,” he said.

O’Donnell also called on the UN secretary general António Guterres to attend the talks.

EU ministers back €20 billion plan to ditch Russian fossil fuels

Last month, the Chinese government invited ministers to attend the high-level segment at the end of the summit on 15-17 December.

While negotiators lay the technical groundwork, political agreement between capitals is what gets these deals over the line.

In a note to governments, Mrema said participation in the high-level segment was “of vital importance to secure an ambitious and achievable post-2020 global biodiversity framework” and urged ministers to attend in person.

The Chinese Cop15 presidency didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The post World leaders not invited to attend critical UN biodiversity summit appeared first on Climate Home News.

Some rainforests are already emitting more carbon dioxide than they absorb, further destabilising the global climate. At current trends, all primary rainforest in the Congo basin – the world’s second largest rainforest – could be cleared by the end of the century.

Given the grim state of the world’s forests, we need to seize every opportunity to do right with nature.

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity summit, or Cop15, relocated to Montreal, Canada, in December this year could be the “Paris moment” for biodiversity, as the 2015 Paris Agreement was for climate.

In Montreal, countries are expected to agree on a global framework to halt biodiversity loss this decade.

As biodiversity negotiators convene this week in Nairobi, Kenya, to prepare the meeting, they must wake up to another crucial truth: Indigenous Peoples and local communities are better at managing their lands than anyone else.

Colombia’s new president Gustavo Petro pledges to keep fossil fuels in the ground

Data gathered across countries and continents consistently shows that when people living in forests are left to run them, the result is better-protected ecosystems and biodiversity than any other conservation model.

Deforestation industries – whether loggers or agribusiness – are well aware of this. While they clear forests, Indigenous Peoples and local communities are being displaced, abused, and murdered.

Delegations attending the biodiversity Cop15 summit are expected to discuss safeguards for recognising the rights and roles of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in conserving nature. So far, discussions haven’t included any concrete commitments.

To protect biodiversity effectively, and ethically, Cop15 must recognise tangible protections for the rights of Indigenous Peoples. That should include creating a new and separate category for Indigenous land, one that puts them as the centre of decision-making and funding.

Currently, there exists two types of conservation designation: protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures when conservation is supposedly achieved even though it isn’t the formal objective of land management.

In Nairobi, countries should agree to create a third category for land which is fully governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

In all protected areas where Indigenous Peoples and local communities live, they must be fully involved in the decision-making processes and management of the area.

The threats are not just the chainsaws and bulldozers of multinational companies seeking to extract natural resources, but “fortress conservation”, which closes off land and forests to human activities.

There is a difficult history not only between forest dwelling Indigenous Peoples and local communities and industries but also with traditional conservationists. Unlike traditional conservation NGOs or government-run parks’ administrators, Indigenous Peoples and local communities consider the forest their home.

Fortress conservation is the result of the exclusion of Indigenous Peoples’ rights from conservation frameworks. This has often led to chronic human right abuses in the form of rape, torture, and killing of forest communities by so-called eco-guards, which has been well-documented in Central Africa.

The latest confrontation took place shortly before the start of the Nairobi talks, when Tanzanian authorities were seen opening fire on Maasai communities opposing the demarcation of a game reserve, which would ban all human settlements and grazing in the area.

Creating a game reserve for tourism by violently evicting the land’s inhabitants isn’t “conserving nature.” It’s a renewed form of colonialism.  

Tanzanian authorities seen opening fire on Maasai people in game reserve dispute

The global deal for nature due to be agreed in Montreal later this year is an opportunity to shun this type of fortress conservation and embrace change.

That means formally recognising the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their ancestral lands and natural resources.

In recent years, some progress has been made. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, it is now possible for forest communities to formally receive rights over a forest concession.

But the Congolese government and donor countries need to do more to make this option accessible to communities.

And across the world, there are still many billions of dollars invested in sustaining this problematic “fortress conservation” model.

Being serious about forest community rights means investing far more in the formal process of recognising Indigenous Peoples’ land rights, management, and decision making, and protecting Indigenous knowledge.

Negotiations taking place in Nairobi this week must be a turning point for Indigenous People’s rights in biodiversity conservation. Allowing NGOs and government agencies to remain the primary beneficiaries of conservation funds would be a huge failure of the UN Biodiversity talks.

The Cop15 biodiversity summit is the moment to lay the groundwork for a new system that protects forests, wildlife and people, which is both effective and just.

Irene Wabiwa Betoko is the international project leader for the Congo Basin forest at Greenpeace Africa. 

The post It’s time to put Indigenous Peoples first at the UN biodiversity talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

Two weeks of slow and tedious negotiations on agreeing on a global framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss came to a close in Geneva, Switzerland, on Tuesday. Little progress has been made in advancing a deal due to be adopted at a biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, later this year.

Many countries supported the inclusion of language on the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and of the role they have traditionally played as stewards of nature.

But not everyone agreed on how this should be reflected in the text.  Russia and China have pushed back against wording on “human rights” and references to a resolution of the UN Human Rights Council on the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment.

Others, including South Korea, have argued for rights-based language to be relegated to a separate section of the deal on cross-cutting issues designed to guide its implementation.

“If we don’t have a framework to protect nature that truly recognises and respects the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities — those who are actually conserving biodiversity — we are all going to be in danger,” said Ramiro Batzin, co-chair of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Draft targets include references to indigenous and local communities throughout, in recognition of their rights to land tenure, resources, traditional knowledge and free, prior and informed consent.

But most of the text, including key conservation targets such as a proposal to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and oceans by 2030, remain in brackets, indicating that it is still subject to negotiations.

“[Negotiators] don’t seem to feel the urgency and the need to act to address biodiversity loss, “ said Jennifer Tauli Corpuz, a lawyer and a member of the Kankanaey Igorot people from northern Philippines.  Attending the meeting, she described the process as “frustrating”.

Indigenous groups have repeatedly warned that adopting a rights-based approach to conservation is critical to the success of the agreement. In recent years, a ballooning body of studies has shown that indigenous territories have lower or similar levels of deforestation to other protected areas.

Yet, in some parts of the world, indigenous communities have been abused, pushed off their land and sometimes killed in the name of conservation.

After US fails to pay its debt, UN’s flagship climate fund warns of austerity

Corpuz is cautiously optimistic about the inclusion of a reference to “the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities” in the conservation target to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and seas. It is outside of brackets, suggesting no country raised direct opposition.

But “the fight is not over,” she said, fearing that more specific language could still be deleted from the text.

A proposal by the negotiations’ co-chairs to “avoid overburdening the text” and to ensure it remains “clear, concise and communicable” could relegate detailed references to rights to a section on cross-cutting issues designed to guide the agreement’s implementation.

Australia and New Zealand have argued that references to indigenous people’s “free, prior and informed consent” should be stripped out of the main text and included in this new section, one source told Climate Home.

In a letter to the meetings co-chairs, campaigners argued the proposal risked “downgrading” important principles that should be strengthened rather than removed and that countries will be less likely to implement these principles if they aren’t mentioned in the operative section of the deal.

Australian carbon traders defend troubled offset market against whistleblower claims

Meanwhile, a proposal pushed by China to include language for upholding rights “in accordance with national legislation” would provide a loophole for countries which do not recognise indigenous rights to wiggle out of any commitment.

An analysis of the draft deal, released last week by the Forest Peoples Programme NGO, argued that without further progress on rights-based language, the agreement “risks falling short of its ambition to achieve transformative change”.

Indigenous groups have called for an increase in direct funding to help them continue their role as guardians of nature. So far, they receive less than 1% of climate funding despite protecting 80% of the world’s biodiversity.

Funding is also needed for indigenous groups to continue to participating in the talks.

Countries agreed to meeting again in Nairobi, Kenya, from 21-26 June to make progress on key elements of the agreement.

The International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity is scrambling to secure funding to attend this additional session. Corpuz said indigenous people must be “at the table”.

At the Cop26 climate talks, a coalition of donors pledged $1.7bn to help indigenous people protect forests

The post Russia, China oppose ‘human rights’ in nature talks, amid slow progress to a deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Following a huge backlash, in a brief statement published on its website Friday evening, the charity said it had agreed to bring the trial to a close and thanked those who had purchased the tokens.

“We recognise that NFTs are a much debated issue and we all have lots to learn about this new market, which is why we will now fully assess the impact of this trial and reflect on how we can best continue to innovate to engage our supporters,” it said.

The U-turn followed an outpouring of criticism on Twitter when the green group announced it was planning to mint NFTs representing 13 of the world’s most endangered animals and sell them on an “eco-friendly” blockchain.

Traditional conservation supporters reacted furiously, citing the emissions associated with generating NFTs. Many said they had cancelled their monthly donations.

But WWF-UK’s sudden halt of the NFT sale has now drawn criticism from the crypto community who backed the project.

“I’m still impressed [at] how they manage[d] to piss off environmentalist[s] and NFT enthusiast[s] at the same time,” one of the artists who designed NFTs wrote on Twitter.

During the two days the initiative lasted, WWF-UK sold 174 “tokens for nature” for a total of $46,600. The biggest sale was a digital representation of a Tapanuli orangutan, which went for nearly $2,700.

WWF-UK, which deleted the pages dedicated to the initiative from its website, offered refunds to anyone who bought the NFTs through official WWF channels. Purchases made on the secondary market are not refundable.

Those willing to keep the tokens remain eligible for rewards, including tickets to WWF events, and the proceeds will fund conservation work.

Buyers on the messaging app Discord expressed their dismay at the turn of events.  After learning the scheme was suddenly halted on Friday evening, they were left in the dark about the implications over the weekend, describing the situation as “a disaster”, “a horrible experience” and the “worst NFT project ever”.

“Unbelievable we got rugged by one of the world’s leading conservation [charities],” wrote user RT21. In the crypto world, “rugging” means abandoning a project after people have bought into it.

Total pushes ahead with Uganda oil project, stays silent on financial backers

Many demanded a refund. “The charity chose to discontinue the NFTs because of environmental concern. Why should they keep the dirty money anyway,” said Fyse. Others said their purchase was always intended as a donation.

“We realise this isn’t how you – or we – expected our drop to roll out,” an administrator for the Discord channel told NFT holders on Monday.

Most believed the charity gave in too quickly to “a bunch of environmentalists” who didn’t understand the potential of NFTs in raising money and awareness of the climate and nature crisis.

“This project could [have] raised a serious amount of funding for the WWF! Shame cancel culture have got their own way… the impact from less funding will be bigger than a bit of power. Well done idiots, hope you put your hand in your pockets and make up the loss from cancelling this project!,” wrote one user.

Science Based Targets initiative accused of providing a “platform for greenwashing”

Part of the controversy focused on the carbon footprint of blockchain technology. WWF-UK minted its NFTs on a blockchain called Polygon, a new generation blockchain which uses a security test known as proof-of-stake that consumes much less energy than that of Ethereum or Bitcoin.

Polygon is a side-chain of the Ethereum blockchain and depends on it to function. While Ethereum is planning to move to a proof-of-stake test, the network currently has a carbon footprint the size of Sweden.

Johannes Sedlmeir, who researches electricity use in blockchain technology at German research centre FIM, told Climate Home that one could argue that Polygon is responsible for a share of Ethereum’s electricity consumption – which WWF-UK didn’t include in its calculations.

But as Polygon advances less energy-intensive blockchains, Sedlmeir said that “it is fair to say that it aims to be eco-friendly and will likely be in the foreseeable future”.

If Polygon attracts sufficient investments to replace energy-hungry blockchains, “then the project essentially contributes to more sustainable cryptocurrencies,” he added.

The post WWF-UK ends sale of NFTs after backlash, angering the crypto community appeared first on Climate Home News.

WWF-UK said it was planning to mint NFTs in the form of digital artwork representing the endangered animals on an “eco-friendly” blockchain and put them up for sale on Thursday.

The charity says the sale of these NFTs will help fund its work to stop the climate and nature crisis and help protect “cherished wildlife” such as rhinos, leopards and gorillas and their habitats.

Followers on Twitter reacted furiously to the news, citing the emissions associated with generating NFTs. They accused the campaign group of harming the environment it claims to protect, with several backers threatening to cancel their donations.

In thousands of replies and quote-retweets of the announcement, critics called WWF “utterly irresponsible”, “out of your mind” and said it “can’t be taken seriously anymore”.

“If you think this was an awful idea that undermines everything WWF stand for? You’re right,” tweeted Amanda Leek.

Gonna take the year I worked for WWF off my CV and start telling prospective employers I was in jail. https://t.co/oKuFV9mY2R

— Gary Dunion (@garydunion) February 2, 2022

WWF-UK argues that the NFTs and blockchain technology are “here to stay” and that by engaging with the technology “in a responsible way”, it can create a new revenue stream to fund vital conservation work.

NFT buyers will be rewarded with “real-world experiences”, including online meetings with leading conservationists, invitations to WWF events, and all-expenses paid trips to see WWF’s work on the ground.

Crypto bubble: The hype machine behind a $70,000 carbon credit

Those NFTs will  be minted on a blockchain called Polygon, a new generation blockchain which uses much less energy than that of Ethereum or Bitcoin. WWF calculated that a single transaction on Polygon has the equivalent carbon emissions of a single glass of tap water.

But experts have refuted the claim this makes Polygon “eco-friendly”.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Polygon is a side-chain of the Ethereum blockchain and depends on it to function. Ethereum is planning to move to a more energy efficient security test which would greatly reduce its energy consumption. But the network currently has a carbon footprint the size of Sweden.

Off-duty technology journalist Alex Hern noted that to convert Polygon into British Pound Sterling requires a transaction through Bitcoin – which has a carbon footprint equivalent to Kuwait’s.

Hern said WWF’s calculation was “hiding the Ethereum and Bitcoin emissions your NFT sale generates somewhere they can’t be easily attributed to you”.

A spokesperson for WWF-UK told Climate Home that Polygon has “comparatively negligible environmental impact” and added that the group was “always looking at innovative ways to engage WWF supporters and fundraisers and trial new ideas”.

But it could backfire. While some social media users said they thought it was a joke from a parody account, others warned they would halt their donations should the initiative go ahead.

I thought this was a parody account. This is the snake eating its own tail. It’s over. Shut it down. https://t.co/t3eWQSUtTZ

— Lee Hazell (@FightLikeACow) February 2, 2022

Please rethink this decision, WWF. I’ve been a loyal supporter for many years, but by adopting this policy you are working against your mission statement, and that is not an action I would be able to continue to support. NFTs ARE a pressing threat to environment and conservation

— Yaz (@_yazzieb) February 2, 2022

This is a good day to cancel your WWF donations. https://t.co/GwWY0k6nRu

— Juri Pakaste (@juripakaste) February 2, 2022

This is not the first time WWF has sold NFTs to raise funding. In November last year, WWF Germany released crypto art in the form of “non-fungible animals” on Polygon. The move prompted a similar backlash with many of the charity’s supporters urging it to reconsider.

In an apparent subtweet of the controversy, rival green group Greenpeace EU posted a picture of the NFTs it supports: Natural Forest Trees.

yeah we think #NFTs could be the next big thing pic.twitter.com/1yRBy6bjLI

— Greenpeace EU (@GreenpeaceEU) February 2, 2022

The post WWF-UK faces backlash over plan to sell NFTs to fund conservation work appeared first on Climate Home News.

A draft decision published on Wednesday emphasised “the critical importance of nature-based solutions and ecosystem-based approaches, including protecting and restoring forests, to reducing emissions, enhancing removals and protecting biodiversity”.

While the importance of nature featured in the negotiated outcome of Cop25 in Madrid, if adopted it would be the first time “nature-based solutions” made it into a UN climate pact.

On Friday, the term nature-based solutions was replaced with the phrase “protecting, conserving and restoring nature” in an updated version of the text.

Supporters see nature-based solutions as a way to connect the climate and biodiversity agendas, setting the scene for an effective biodiversity deal in Kunming, China next year. Critics object to the implied commodification of the natural world and say the term is misused by big business to justify continued pollution.

Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and an architect of the Paris Agreement, said at a press conference on Thursday that she hoped nature-based solutions would make it into the final pact. “It’s good that we are going away from the vision of nature being offsets – and more towards the idea of restoration, of nature being an important element of the climate package,” she said. 

“More and more we will see that it is impossible to distinguish between biodiversity and climate. They’re two parts of the same problem,” she said.

A space is opening up to discuss oil and gas exit at Cop26. Lobbyists are pushing back. 

An observer of the talks told Climate Home News that the UK, Colombia, France, the EU, US, Singapore, Fiji, DRC, Mexico, Norway, Australia, Canada and Liberia are all pushing for nature-based solutions to be included in the final Cop26 text.

At a meeting of heads of delegation on Wednesday, Bolivian negotiator Diego Pacheco Balanza objected to the phrase on behalf of the like-minded development countries (LMDCs).

“This text assumes that nature is only in service of people’s needs, but nature has an intrinsic value. It is sacred. That must be reflected. ‘Nature-based solutions’ were never negotiated here,” Bolivia’s negotiator said, as reported by an observer who attended the meeting. 

China, the host country for biodiversity talks in April, is a member of the LMDCs. The Chinese delegation did not make anyone available to comment.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Gavin Edwards, WWF’s nature lead at Cop26, told Climate Home News that the inclusion highlights that “nature has truly arrived in the climate discourse” and helps “bridge the silo between the nature and climate community”.

He said that if the final Cop26 text references nature-based solutions, it will “strengthen the hand for it to be included in the CBD [Kunming biodiversity agreement]”. It was removed from an early draft of the biodiversity convention following opposition by some African governments, Brazil and Argentina.

“It will be very hard for [nature-based solutions] not to be an outcome in the CBD if it is agreed at Cop[26],” said Edwards. “More governments are keen to link these two agendas, of biodiversity and climate. Nature-based solutions [provide] that linkage.”

Indigenous delegates at Cop26 (Photo: UNFCCC/Flickr)

Indigenous leaders from forest regions have mixed feelings about the concept, stressing that it must come with safeguards for their rights.

“Our position is that indigenous governance is the quintessential nature-based solution. Therefore, indigenous peoples’ governance should be recognised and supported as a nature-based solution. For other nature-based solutions projects, there should be safeguards and full respect for indigenous peoples’ rights,” Jing Corpuz, an Igorot leader from the Philippines and policy lead at the non-profit Nia Tero, told Climate Home News.

Genilda Maria Rodrigues, an indigenous observer from the Kaingang community in southern Brazil, said she welcomes nature-based solutions as restoration of forests is urgently needed in her region. “We are approaching the point of no return,” she said. “We want someone to help our community reforest the area…

“But it’s very important that it is done in a transparent way. We don’t want it [done in] any way, but in the right way, with the consultation of the indigenous community,” she added.

China-US announce deal at Cop26 to accelerate climate action this decade

There are also concerns that polluters could use nature-based projects to offset rather than reduce their own emissions.

Teresa Anderson, climate policy coordinator at ActionAid International, told Climate Home News, that nature-based solutions often “become synonymous with carbon offsets”.

“When they do, they end up compounding the injustice of climate change,” she said, adding that there is currently no official definition, criteria or safeguarding mechanism for nature-based solutions. 

“We’d rather see language that recognises the critical importance of biodiversity and ecosystems to addressing the climate crisis, that doesn’t set up nature for being a solution to corporations’ pollution,” she said.

This article was updated on 12 November 2021 to reflect new language in the Cop26 cover text. 

The post ‘Nature-based solutions’ prove divisive at Glasgow climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

Xi announced the ¥1.5 billion ($230 million) Kunming Biodiversity Fund to help implement a new framework for protecting nature this decade. He called on other countries to contribute to the fund.

China is presiding over critical UN Convention on Biological Diversity talks, known as Cop15. Countries are negotiating a set of targets and objectives to prevent the destruction of the Earth’s plants and wildlife by 2030. The agreement, which has been compared to the Paris Agreement for nature, is expected to be finalised in Kunming, China, in April-May next year.

“The new environmental protection targets we set need to be ambitious, on the one hand, and pragmatic and balanced on the other, so as to make the global environmental governance system fairer and more equitable,” Xi told the meeting in Kunming via video link.

“Faced with the dual tasks of economic recovery and environmental protection, developing countries need help and support,” he said.

Xi further announced the creation of national parks covering an area of 230,000 square kilometers.

Countries failing to protect forests, 7 years after New York declaration

In a statement, Greenpeace East Asia said the Kunming Biodiversity Fund “should jump start an urgently needed conversation on biodiversity finance”, adding that “Cop15 needs to see donor countries from the developed world contributing in this regard”.

“Finance and a strong implementation mechanism should be the biggest legacy of China’s CBD presidency. Our planet needs not just another set of targets on paper, but their actual fulfilment.”

Greenpeace welcomed the establishment of national parks. “China’s domestic efforts in setting up natural reserve systems should help it to spearhead the march towards a goal to protect 30% of land by 2030” – one of the global targets up for negotiation.

There was no climate announcement but President Xi said China “will release implementation plans for peaking carbon dioxide emissions in key areas and sectors as well as a series of supporting measures”.

As part of the G20, Beijing signed a ministerial statement in July stating that it intended “to update or communicate an ambitious [2030 climate plan] by Cop26” but it is yet to do so, with three weeks to the UN climate summit in Glasgow, UK.

Xi made no mention of when these plans will be published. Li Shuo, a long-standing observer of China in the climate talks, told Climate Home News the timing for their release remains “very unclear” but “the good news is it will be out before Cop, so we only have less than 20 days”.

The post Xi Jinping announces biodiversity fund to help developing nations protect nature appeared first on Climate Home News.

The IUCN Congress closed in the French port city of Marseille on Friday after a week of discussions between campaigners, indigenous groups and governments, eager to influence the UN biodiversity talks, which are due to open in Kunming, China, in October and finish in May 2022.

In its final hours, the Congress overwhelmingly endorsed a blueprint to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It calls for a deal to “ensure there is more nature globally in 2030 than there was in 2020”.

The verdict has been largely welcomed by campaigners who earlier in the summit expressed “deep concerns at the lack of ambition” of the draft framework for protecting biodiversity under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. The framework is billed as the equivalent of the Paris Agreement for nature.

Gavin Edwards of WWF, which co-sponsored the motion, told Climate Home News the proposal aimed to plug the gaps of the agreement with “very specific guidance” to governments and establish “a unifying direction” for the talks.

“It takes us a necessary step closer to a more equitable, nature positive and net zero emissions world, but there are still a few critical steps ahead to truly secure this. Governments and civil society organisations must translate the intent shown in the motion into concrete action,” he said.

Conservationists back indigenous peoples’ call to protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025

In response to the stalled biodiversity talks, IUCN members urged countries to adopt a “transformative” global framework for nature that addresses all the drivers of biodiversity loss and contains “an inspirational and easy to communicate 2030 mission”.

“The current draft agreement lacks a clear ambition mission, it doesn’t address the drivers of biodiversity loss and lacks clarity on implementation mechanisms,” Edwards said.

The concept of “nature positive” could be for nature what the 1.5C goal has become for climate ambition, he explained. It could be measured by the population of species and the number of protected and restored ecosystems, as well as reducing drivers of nature destruction such as harmful agricultural subsidies.

Borrowing an idea from the climate process, the motion further calls for a “ratchet” mechanism to regularly review and strengthen national and sectoral targets.

Watchers of the biodiversity talks have repeatedly warned that the draft biodiversity deal fails to provide a concrete action plan to meet its aspirations for 2030 and beyond.

Although none of the motions agreed by the IUCN Congress are legally binding, Edwards said they would become a powerful lobbying tool ahead of Cop15 in Kunming.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Indigenous groups took part in the Congress as full members for the first time and won backing for a motion to protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025.

In the Marseille manifesto, the summit’s main outcome document, IUCN members recognised and supported indigenous peoples’ rights and roles “as leaders and custodians of biodiversity”.

The Congress agreed that targets for protected areas had to reinforce their rights as set out in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Participants of the IUCN Congress conferring during a break (Photo: IISD/ENB)

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, told Climate Home the IUCN Congress had been an opportunity to push for a rights-based approach to conservation to thread through the biodiversity treaty.

The latest draft of the biodiversity agreement refers to indigenous peoples in three of 21 targets and only mentions the need to “respect their rights over lands, territories and resources” in the last one.

Last month, the Chinese presidency of the talks published the draft Kunming declaration, the summit’s high-level political statement – an unusual move which took observers by surprise.

The four-page document merely “acknowledges that indigenous peoples and local communities have contributed to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through the application of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices”.

It makes no mention of indigenous peoples’ rights nor does it commit countries to recognising them.

To close the climate ambition gap, we must look beyond national targets

Judith Shapiro, of the American University, Washington DC, told Climate Home that China speaks of “minority nationalities” rather than indigenous people and has no tradition of prior consultation.

“China would argue that minority nationalities already enjoy unusual protections within a country that is essentially one big happy family,” she said, adding that Beijing would oppose any overarching framework that would be seen as interfering with sovereign rights.

In the name of “going green”, China has exploited the territories of ethnic minorities through mineral extraction and dam building, and relocated nomadic peoples away from lands designated as nature reserves.  “It is extremely unlikely that China would accept any framework that would interfere with that agenda,” she said.

Her colleague Yifei Li, of New York University Shanghai, told Climate Home the language around indigenous rights was unlikely to lead to open confrontation at the talks “because China is uninterested in having a substantive discussion about this issue”.

Tauli-Corpuz said indigenous peoples’ rights needed to be reflected across the entire treaty and not in isolated targets. While there is a broad consensus for adopting a rights-based approach among the conservation community, she said, “there are still a lot of governments that don’t want it to be mentioned”.

The post Conservationists set out ‘nature positive’ vision for global biodiversity deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

The world congress of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature overwhelmingly voted for a global pact to protect the world’s largest tropical forest — putting conservationists on a collision course with Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro.

The proposal was submitted by the Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon Basin (Coica), whose members erupted in joy when the vote results were announced. The motion was formally supported by 17 civil society groups from across the world.

José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal, general director of Coica, described the proposal as “a plan for the salvation of indigenous peoples and the planet”.

“We have achieved a first step. For the first time in the history of the IUCN, a motion by indigenous peoples has been approved; a proposal that was not born in Europe but in our territories,” he told Climate Home News. 

Coica members erupt in joy as IUCN approves their motion (Photo: Coica)

In total, 61 countries members of IUCN backed the motion, which is not legally binding, and 42 abstained. None voted against.

Brazil, which is not an IUCN member, could not participate in the vote. But Brazilian experts say president Jair Bolsonaro is highly unlikely to take notice of the verdict, which clashes with his agenda to open up the Amazon to business interests.

Displaced Afghan negotiator calls for climate aid to war-torn states

The motion urges governments to promote efforts to restore at least half of the Amazon’s degraded forests by 2025 and to work with indigenous peoples’ to fully recognise and delimit all their ancestral land and territories.

Coica said Amazon countries must enable indigenous peoples and local communities to govern protected areas that overlap with their territories. They further called on states to ban industrial activities in primary forests and mobilise more funding to restore ecosystems.

But in Brazil, the opposite is taking place. The Bolsonaro administration is pushing through a series of laws to roll back indigenous rights, environmental licensing standards, and land grabbing legislation, all of which prevent forest clearance, campaigners say.

Deforestation in the Amazon rose 17% in 2020 compared with the previous year. The world’s largest rainforest is now emitting more carbon than it absorbs. Humid primary forest loss in the Brazilian Amazon increased 15% during that time.

The UN backed Science Panel for the Amazon, which is composed of 200 scientists, found that 17% of the Amazon basin’s forests have been felled. It warned that if combined deforestation and degradation surged to 20-25%, the forest could reach a tipping point. Rainfall would dry up and large swaths of the forests could turn into savannah, resulting in massive carbon emissions.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Paulo Moutinho, senior researcher at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (Ipam), told Climate Home he didn’t expect any reaction from Bolsonaro’s administration.

Global efforts and initiative to protect the Amazon have usually been met with claims about foreign interference and breach of sovereignty, Moutinho said.

However, outside of Brazil, the vote “certainly could reinforce the view that to protect the Amazon forest, we urgently need to protect indigenous rights to their lands,” he said.

Izabella Teixeira, Brazil’s former environment minister and co-chair of the International Resource Panel, told Climate Home the motion could be used by civil society groups in Brazil to call for environmental protection ahead of next year’s presidential election – an issue she said will be “critical”.

Mirabal, of Coica, said he hoped the motion could be translated into an action plan and implemented. He said Coica would take it to governments in South America and beyond to Europe, the US and China to drum up support.

“We want this motion to generate projects and political support for our territories, but also conserve and protect our home,” he said. “Trust us, we are going to do everything possible. But we need financial and technical support, the political will of governments, and of all the allies who today voted for us,” he said.

The post Conservationists back indigenous peoples’ call to protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The 2020 International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress, which was delayed because of the pandemic, opened on Friday in a hybrid online and in-person format.

The Congress, which is held once every four years, brings together thousands of representatives from governments, civil society, business and academia. It will set the scene for critical biodiversity talks in Kunming, China, in May, when countries are due to agree on global goals to protect nature to 2030.

For the first time, indigenous organisations representing people from Latin America, Africa and Asia will be attending the IUCN Congress as full-time members. This reflects a rapidly growing recognition of their critical role in addressing the dual biodiversity and climate crisis.

In recent years, a ballooning body of studies has shown that indigenous territories have lower or similar levels of deforestation to other protected areas.

At the same time, research has linked the rise of “fortress” conservation, which closes off land and forests to human activities, with chronic patterns of abuse and human rights violations.

This has led indigenous peoples and human rights groups to call for a different approach to conservation that puts indigenous rights to land and natural resources at the heart of solutions to halt the destruction of the planet’s biodiversity.

The future of humanitarian aid? Pilot scheme stops drought leading to hunger

A day ahead of the Congress’ opening, a group of human rights NGOs, including Survival International and Minority Rights Group, held a countersummit presenting an alternative vision for conservation.

They denounced calls for governments to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land by 2030 – up from a previous target of around 17%  – as a “false solution” which risks pushing local communities off their land and diverts attention away from the over-consumption and exploitation of natural resources, which they say is the root cause of the climate and biodiversity crisis.

Fiore Longo, of Survival International, told Climate Home News that expanding protected areas was “terrible from a human rights perspective” and could lead to one of the biggest land grabs in history.

“Indigenous people are showing that other models are working to address the biodiversity and climate crisis. There needs to be a recognition of their land rights,” she said.

Longo explained that part of the problem lies with the definition of protected areas adopted by IUCN and widely used around the world. Out of six levels of conservation measures, four exclude most human activities with exceptions for scientific research and tourism. Indigenous territories are not recognised as a category.

Longo said national parks and reserves in much of Africa and South East Asia have prevented indigenous people from carrying out their traditional hunting and fishing activities.

Baka people, pictured here in Cameroon, have been attacked by national park guards in the Republic of Congo. (Photo: Greenpeace/Kate Davison)

In Africa, protected areas have become militarised and defended by armed rangers, which at times have been accused of violence and physical abuse against local people.

Mordecai Ogada, a Kenyan conservationist, told Climate Home that expanding protected areas in Africa would lead to more violence.

“National parks are wonderful places but the product of violence and disfranchisement of non-white people,” he said.

“Our conservation thinking is based on Tarzan: a white man in the jungle with animals and no people. But it’s actually possible to protect species without kicking people off the land. There is no way we can claim to protect biodiversity if we can’t protect human diversity.”

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

Among the conservation community, there is widespread and growing recognition that human rights abuses have been carried out in the name of protecting wildlife.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, wrote that human rights abuses in the world’s protected areas was part of “the disturbing uptick of criminalisation and even extrajudicial killings”.

Writing in a policy brief this month, UN’s special rapporteur on human rights and the environment David Boyd argued that achieving environmental goals “demands a dramatic departure from ‘conservation as usual’,” and called for a rights-based approach.

But for Trevor Sandwith, director of IUCN’s Global Protected Areas Programme, Survival International is wrong to say that mainstream conservation organisations are not putting communities’ rights at the heart of their approach.

“Most of the world’s remaining biodiversity is directly the result of indigenous peoples and local communities’ custodianship of the natural world,” he told Climate Home. “The idea of conserving more of the planet isn’t to take resources away from people but to recognise their right to conserve nature.”

Frustration mounts as Cop26 delegates wait for the UK’s promised Covid vaccines

Sandwith said IUCN has embraced the concept of conserved areas, where nature is being protected even if that isn’t the prime objective, such as in indigenous territories.

Conserved areas should be counted towards the 30% target without being turned into stricter protected areas, he said, adding that this had become a key issue at the UN biodiversity talks.

Central to this idea is to protect indigenous people and communities’ decision-making power on their land.

On this basis, Coica, a Pan-Amazonian indigenous group, submitted a motion to IUCN members calling for protecting 80% of the Amazon basin by 2025.

The group urged governments to ensure that indigenous peoples and local communities govern and manage new protected areas that overlap with their traditional territories.

José Gregorio Diaz Mirabal, lead coordinator of Coica, which represents 511 indigenous peoples and protects 66 uncontacted and voluntarily isolated tribes, said: “Our proposal comes at a time of desperation in the quest for solutions to stop the destruction of the natural world.

“What we are proposing is a new model, and it is a model that will work,” he said.

The post Conservation summit opens amid debate over role of indigenous people appeared first on Climate Home News.

The document will form the basis of negotiations ahead of a biodiversity summit in Kunming, China, where governments are due to agree on a post-2020 framework to protect life on Earth.

“This is meant to be both a summary of the current state of the discussion but also a way to elicit more discussion and negotiation,” Basil van Havre, co-chair of the open working group in charge of overseeing the negotiations at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity wrote on Twitter.  

But while the draft text sets out aspirations and objectives for 2030 and beyond, it fails to provide a concrete action plan to meet them, campaigners say.

“This is just about targets without really anything on how to get there,” Li Shuo, of Greenpeace East Asia, who is closely following the biodiversity discussions, told Climate Home News. There is “no strategy behind actual delivery”.

G20 backs carbon pricing, ‘raising stakes’ among emerging economies

The 12-page document sets out 4 long-term goals to 2050, 10 milestones against which to assess progress at the end of the decade and 21 targets addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss to be met by 2030.

These include protecting at least 30% of the Earth’s land and seas, cutting pesticide use by two thirds, and halving food waste and overconsumption by the end of the decade. At least $500 billion of harmful subsidies annually would also need to be eliminated by 2030.

Measures to restore ecosystems and ensure sustainable agriculture, forestry and aquaculture practices could reduce at least 10 gigatonnes of CO2 per year by 2030 – about a third of the reductions needed to limit global heating to 1.5C – although how the accounting will be done remains unclear.

Only a page and a half of the text is dedicated to a mechanism to deliver on these goals. It says countries have “a responsibility” to translate the global goals into national targets and transparently monitor and report on their progress in meeting them.

Georgina Chandler, senior international policy officer at bird charity RSPB, said the language was not strong enough. “It is hard to see how the effort that has been put into trying to strengthen the implementation mechanism has translated into the latest draft. It seems to be business as usual,” she said.

Comment: EU must use its carbon border tax to support a just transition around the world

Van Havre told Climate Home last month negotiators were struggling to make progress in online negotiations and an in-person meeting would be needed before the deal could be finalised.

The Kunming summit could be postponed for a third time, amid concerns uneven access to Covid vaccines makes it hard to to convene safely and inclusively in October, as planned. The CBD bureau is meeting on Thursday and may decide to push the conference to 2022.

“While the targets are much improved, there is still a lot of work to do,” said Andrew Deutz, director of global policy at The Nature Conservancy. “We are concerned that not all the implementation provisions are embedded in the core document, and that the monitoring and reporting framework is still incomplete.”

Deutz said he was “pleased with the level of ambition in the proposed targets,” noting the call to plug a $700 billion annual funding gap for nature by 2030.

“Then again, we said the same thing in 2010 when the world adopted the Aichi targets,” he added, referring to the previous set of biodiversity goals, which the world failed to meet in 2020.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

For Brian O’Donnell, director of Campaign for Nature, a proposed goal to increase rich countries’ support to developing nations by $10 billion a year is not enough to ensure robust implementation of the deal in developing countries.

“Now it’s time for wealthy nations to commit the additional funding necessary to meet the targets laid out in this framework,” he said.

He added the draft made “important progress” in recognising the central role indigenous peoples and local communities must play in conservation decision-making and management.

The text recognises the need for “equitable and effective participation” by indigenous and local communities and includes a goal to ensure their traditional knowledge and practices guide decision-making with communities’ free, prior and informed consent.

The post UN draft accord sets out new biodiversity goals but delivery plan is lacking appeared first on Climate Home News.

Countries are due to meet in Kunming, China, 11-24 October to agree on a framework to halt the decline and extinction of species by 2030 and allow ecosystems to recover by 2050.

But preparatory talks have been delayed by the coronavirus pandemic. Five weeks into a six-week online session, Basile Van Havre, co-chair of the negotiations, told Climate Home News they still had a lot of catching up to do.

“That October date is very soon. And we know that there is a significant amount of negotiation that needs to take place. We need to look seriously at whether it’s possible to meet physically in September or not. If not, we don’t have the time,” said Van Havre.

“So we either get a work programme that enables us to reach the goal that we have, which is an ambitious framework. Or, if we reduce the work plan, then we’re going to have to change the expectations for the [Kunming summit].”

Comment: All hands on deck! We must use online tools to make climate talks more inclusive

Van Havre said negotiators were struggling from fatigue, with many working through the night to accommodate time differences.

While nations have come prepared and willing to exchange views, “we are not getting to the compromise-making, solution-building stage,” Van Havre said. “And that’s a big concern.”

Negotiating online has made it more difficult to create the sense of a collective project, he added. In more normal times, concessions are often made at the end of intense face to face discussions. Online, “the sessions come to an end, you switch off your screen and that’s it”.

And some find it harder to participate than others. Van Havre told Climate Home there had been reduced engagement from Africa, where many delegates are juggling diplomatic responsibilities with full time jobs in government ministries.

#WeStandWithAfrica on calling to halt important decision making processes at @UNBiodiversity until all countries affected by #digitalinequalities can participate fully and equally, face to face. #digitalinequalities #placemaking #digitaldivide #digitalexclusion #face2facemeetings pic.twitter.com/VypjO1Lsky

— Nele Marien (@nelemarien) June 2, 2021

“When they are travelling, it is accepted that they are not going to do their day job. But when they are in the office [negotiating remotely], they’re still expected to do their day job. That’s a big challenge,” Van Havre said.

UK calls on Indonesia to set out roadmap to net zero emissions

Unlike discussions in the climate space, where there remain only a few points of negotiation to finalise the rules of the Paris Agreement, biodiversity negotiators are tasked with thrashing out a full global agreement to protect nature for the next nine years.

For Li Shuo, senior policy officer at Greenpeace East Asia, this is “pushing multilateral online negotiations to its limits”.

Georgina Chandler, senior international policy officer at bird charity RSPB, told Climate Home virtual negotiations had been constructive in many ways but many contentious issues were being deferred. “We are running out of time and space,” she said.

Critical areas of disagreements are emerging. Mobilising finance to help developing nations implement the deal has “really come to a head” and “infiltrated all the discussions” over the last round of talks, said Chandler.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

Proposals for a robust accountability and reporting mechanism to monitor and compare countries’ efforts to meet global targets against a set of performance indicators are also in the firing line.

“There is a group of countries that are very protective of their national prerogative [and] don’t want to be told by a system. And that’s, Brazil, Argentina, China, Malaysia,” Van Havre told Climate Home.

He added that without common reporting rules, no-one was able to measure progress or ensure countries were on track towards meeting common goals.

Campaigners say this is one reason why the world failed to meet any of the internationally agreed biodiversity goals in 2020.

“There is a significant lack of accountability in the process,” said Chandler.

Van Havre said the talks are “at a critical point” and he remains optimistic an ambitious framework can be achieved. “I think all of us need to remain flexible, adaptable. I see that parties are willing to consider change, in order to get the result we want.” That, he said, “is really good news”.

The post Biodiversity talks are running out of time for robust deal, says top diplomat appeared first on Climate Home News.

The launch comes after countries failed to meet internationally agreed 2020 targets to prevent the destruction of plants and wildlife. 

The Legacy Landscapes Fund aims to mobilise enough funding from private and public donors to provide 15 years of financial support for 30 conservation areas. 

At a launch event on Wednesday, Germany’s finance minister Gerd Muller said the fund would “provide lasting, reliable core funding for at least 30 biodiversity hotspots in Africa, Asia and Latin America”. 

The German government and several private donors have invested the first $100 million in the fund which will be used for seven pilot projects in four African countries, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Bolivia. Funding will be used to pay park rangers, support local communities, fund surveillance and monitoring and maintain infrastructure. 

Cyclone Tauktae leaves trail of devastation in western India, fuelled by a warming sea

US climate envoy John Kerry and UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa both spoke at the event. “Nature is our best line of defence against the climate crisis,” Kerry said, stressing its important role as a carbon sink. “When given the chance, nature often recovers.”

“Mother nature does not work in a silo,” said Espinosa, noting that the destruction of nature can lead to a deadly chain of events and have severe impacts on human health.

Other speakers emphasised the link between biodiversity loss and the spread of diseases such as coronavirus. 

Stefanie Lang, the fund’s director, said that French president Emmanuel Macron has expressed his support and aims to make a financial contribution by 2022. 

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

“We hope to attract other governments to join the initiative. This needs to be a global movement,” she said. “By ensuring that the costs of nature protection are covered, the Legacy Landscapes Fund addresses a key threat for the survival of species and of humankind.” 

The fund was established ahead of a global biodiversity summit in Kunming, China in October where the UN will seek to secure an agreement on protecting 30% of the Earth’s land and water by 2030.

Over 50 countries, including the US, UK and France, have said they will support the plan. To date just 17% of land and 8% of oceans are protected. According to a new report published on Wednesday, the number of protected areas has increased by 42% since 2010. 

IEA: End fossil fuel expansion now for net zero energy emissions by 2050

The 17% land conservation target was just one part of Aichi target 11 – a 10-year conservation goal. Governments have not fully met any of 20 Aichi biodiversity targets set at a meeting in Japan in 2010. Funding shortfalls and harmful subsidies significantly hindered progress. 

The 30 by 30 plan has been criticised by campaigners who are concerned that it will result in indigenous communities losing their land and livelihoods. Survival International recently launched a campaign describing it as the “biggest land grab in history”

Lang said the fund would work closely with indigenous communities and support their legal rights. 

“In some cases, it is only because of indigenous people that we still have areas that are worth protecting,” she said.

The post Germany launches $1 billion biodiversity fund after world misses targets appeared first on Climate Home News.

They’re also among the first to identify a major problem with Shell’s plan, which science suggests is better seen as a defence of their core gas and oil business rather than a genuine energy transition. Some have already announced their intention to reject the plan, and more are likely to follow.

These shareholders are part of a bigger story. As the integrity of Shell’s plan struggles to weather scrutiny, it highlights our collective need to equip investors, governments, and businesses with the scientific tools they need to assess the necessary and realistic pathways to limit global warming to 1.5C.

A failure to look clear-eyed at the science behind these transition plans will be disastrous for the planet. The likelihood of limiting temperature rises to 1.5C is vanishingly small already. If other businesses follow Shell’s lead and go unchallenged, our chances of tempering the most catastrophic effects of climate change will disappear altogether.

IEA: End fossil fuel expansion now for net zero energy emissions by 2050

As climate scientists, we watched Shell’s latest pledge to reach net zero by 2050 with interest. Recently, we analysed the Shell Sky Scenario – its previous climate change scenario – as part of a study evaluating the hundreds of proposed pathways to mitigate climate change this century to stabilise temperature rise to 1.5C.

Each pathway makes different assumptions about climate policies, energy demand, reforestation, technologies for carbon dioxide removal, and renewables take-up. A general challenge with climate scenarios is whether they are based on realistic assumptions, and our analysis aims to transparently separate feasible from fantasy scenarios.

In a rigorous peer-reviewed analysis by 16 scientists, we found serious problems with the feasibility of Shell’s pathway. Among the over 400 climate scenarios included in the IPCC 1.5C report, only 50 scenarios take us towards a 1.5C future, with no or limited overshoot.

Among these 50, only 20 are based on realistic assumptions that global emissions must bend around 2020 at the latest to reach close to zero around 2050. We included Shell’s Sky Scenario as an additional reference, and it was by far, the one that most clearly lies outside the feasibility corridor to limit temperature rise to 1.5C. If the world emits as much greenhouse gas as Shell’s scenario suggests, it would lead to global temperatures rising well beyond the agreed Paris range.

Want more climate news? Sign up to get updates straight to your inbox

When Shell announced its updated 1.5C Sky Scenario centered around a net zero target 20 years earlier than planned, we wondered what radical emission reductions it had priced in – only to find there weren’t any. Analysis of the latest plans show the company will attempt to meet their self-declared targets while freezing emissions at more or less the same level as today. In fact, it’s currently forecasting an increase in gas production and gas exports to global markets.

Rather than reducing its emissions, Shell plans to offset gigatonnes of emissions by planting trees to capture carbon. It says that reforestation and other nature-based technology will be enough to allow its expanding operations. But Shell’s Sky scenario requires a forest the size of Brazil to offset the volume of carbon it intends to continue pumping out.

Offsetting carbon emissions with forest growth at this scale is a dangerous fantasy. There’s limited land and water available for tree planting: if Shell plants this many trees, it risks diverting land we need to feed a growing population. And science tells us it is simply not possible to substitute carbon emissions from coal, oil and gas, with unstable ‘green’ carbon sinks in trees and soil.

While offsetting with nature-based solutions and techniques for carbon dioxide removal is necessary, it should only be used to offset residual, difficult to abate sectors like agriculture and aviation.

Spain to end fossil fuel production by 2042 under new climate law

Instead Shell’s focus must be on cutting emissions by half each decade and investing in keeping natural carbon stocks intact, maintaining vital resilience in forests, soils, permafrost, and freshwater and ocean systems. This investment cannot be double counted as offsets, and should receive funding as additional nature-based solutions.

In short, betting on tree planting to reach net-zero by 2050 is taking colossal risks with our common future.

It’d be easy pickings for Shell to find a profitable energy business away from fossil fuels, because the energy sector is ripe for innovation – we’ve already seen revolutionary transformation in electricity generation from renewables. But if it insists on maintaining a business as usual strategy it will need to play an outsized role in carbon trading markets to offset those emissions.

That would be bad news for other sectors which have few other options to decarbonise, and more legitimate reasons to offset. It could also be bad for Shell’s shareholders: if Shell is too firmly hedged on the side of oil and gas, shareholders may lose out in an eventual energy transition.

A plan based on questionable science, betting on unproven technology, and fantasising about planting a forest as big as Brazil isn’t corporate leadership, it’s corporate malfeasance on an unprecedented scale with fallout stretching many, many generations into the future.

If Shell pursues this plan, it should have no role with the UK presidency at Cop26, or in the Race to Zero campaign. Institutions like the Science Museum should ensure that Shell does not finance environmental exhibits as a way of greenwashing its reputation. Lastly, Shell should be removed as a member of the main committee for Mark Carney’s taskforce of scaling voluntary carbon markets, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Cop26.

Shell sees oil and gas playing a role in our global economy for many decades to come. Science says that is simply not feasible if we want to avoid catastrophic climate breakdown. Shell is asking its shareholders to believe in unicorns not science.

Johan Rockström, is a professor in environmental science at the Stockholm Resilience Center, at Stockholm University; Gail Whiteman is director of the Pentland Centre for Sustainability in Business, at Lancaster University. 

The post Shell’s net zero plan will be judged on science, not spin appeared first on Climate Home News.

Like many developing countries, though, its capacity to build back better from Covid-19 is limited by a mounting debt burden.

The government is developing a novel debt-for-nature scheme to ease its debt woes and accelerate the “10 billion tree tsunami”. Designed by the Finance for Biodiversity initiative, the first-of-its-kind nature performance bond would link debt retirement with nature restoration targets.

Prime minister Imran Khan has promised to plant 10 billion trees across the country and restore more than a million hectares of forest. The mammoth project aims to increase resilience to climate impacts like extremes of rainfall, while absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere and creating jobs.

“We are investing heavily in nature so when this conversation started about the nature bond we were excited about it,” Malik Amin Aslam, Pakistan prime minister’s official advisor on climate change, told Climate Home News.

“There is a push post-Covid-19 to ask for debt retirement and if we can link [relief] to nature performance, it gives more value to the world,” he said.

Special advisor on climate change Malik Amin Aslam inaugurates a mangrove plantation at Yaqi Bundar, Sindh province, Pakistan (Photo: Ministry of Climate Change/Government of Pakistan)

As of February, the government claimed to have created 85,000 jobs by paying unemployed members of the community to work in tree nurseries and look after saplings, under its “tree tsunami”. It aims to employ another 200,000 people to drive the afforestation effort.

Prime minister Khan announced the creation of 15 national parks to protect over 7,300 square kilometres of land last year. The establishment of a National Park Service aims to create 5,000 jobs in nature protection to respond to a rise in unemployment.

The former cricketer turned prime minister has made the campaign one of his flagship policies since taking office in 2018, staking much of his reputation on the project’s success.

Prime Minister Imran Khan plants Kashmir Freedom Tree in Islamabad, special prayers were held for the development of Pakistan and Independence of Held Kashmir on occasion.#KashmirBlackDay #BlackDay pic.twitter.com/DBErjzO88W

— Government of Pakistan (@GovtofPakistan) October 27, 2019

“This is a highly politicised project,” Mahmood Akhtar Cheema, country representative for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Pakistan, told Climate Home News.

The government is in the first phase of planting 3.3 billion trees by election year in 2023 and is hoping to meet the first billion goal by the end of June – a target it is on track to meet, said Aslam.

Between $800 million and $1 billion have been earmarked for the tree tsunami in the next four years. IUCN Pakistan estimates the campaign could end up costing $2.5bn.

Syed Kamran Hussain, of WWF-Pakistan, told Climate Home News the pilot will help “develop the financial framework for the restoration of degraded ecosystems” at a time when liquidity is in short supply.

“The government is currently using its own resources, but there is a need for the international community to make investments,” Cheema said, describing the prospect of the new bond as “huge opportunity” to raise funds.

Rare IMF relief offers a hope of green recovery to debt-laden nations

The triple crisis of Covid-19, ballooning debt and climate change has propelled debt-for-climate schemes to the top of the international agenda.

Khan has been vocal about the need for rich countries to provide debt relief to developing nations that are struggling to meet their population’s basic needs, let alone invest in sustainable and low-carbon development.

According to its central bank, Pakistan’s external debt and liabilities have grown from $95bn in 2018 to almost $116bn at the end of December 2020. On average over the past five years, debt interest payments accounted for a third of the country’s total revenues.

Pakistan is expected to benefit the most in absolute terms from a debt service suspension initiative agreed by the G20 group of rich countries. But the central bank estimates this relief will not be sufficient “to create the needed fiscal space to mitigate the impact of Covid-19”.

Climate vulnerability should be factored into debt relief, says IMF head

Mark Halle, an environment and sustainable expert who helped set up IUCN’s Pakistan programme in the mid-1980s, is familiar with the country’s efforts to restore its ecosystems and its need for funding.

Now a member of the Finance for Biodiversity initiative, Halle knows Aslam, who serves as the global vice president of IUCN, well. When he asked the climate advisor whether Pakistan would be interested in piloting the new bond, he quickly got his attention.

Under the scheme, a creditor nation would agree to write off a portion of newly issued debt or reduce repayment interest rates if Pakistan met agreed biodiversity and nature restoration targets.

This could include increasing mangrove coverage along the coast, for example. Mangroves are a natural barrier that protect from storms and sea level rise and store up to four times as much carbon as land-based forests.

Mangrove cover in Pakistan’s Indus delta has increased by an estimated 300% between 1990 and 2020, according to a recent study. But researchers found climate change and human activities, such as camel grazing, cutting trees for fuel and overfishing, had driven four out of eight indigenous mangrove species to extinction.

A tree nursery (Photo: WWF-Pakistan)

To ensure the environmental integrity of the pilot, satellite images will be used to monitor performance against agreed nature restoration targets.

“We made it clear that we would be looking for performance measures that genuinely created change on the ground,” Halle said. “Designing a new national park wouldn’t work because that is essentially drawing a line on a map.” But the restoration of a designated area could be rewarded.

“This creates a very strong incentive to perform” and accelerate the implementation of the government’s nature and biodiversity programmes, Halle told Climate Home News from his home in Switzerland.

“If the government subsequently decided to cut down the trees and plough the land, debt payment interest rates would rise again, creating an incentive not only to perform, but to stick with the performance,” he added.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

One potential stumbling block is corruption.

Before Khan became prime minister, his party started its tree-planting initiative on a regional scale in the northern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2014.

In terms of its environmental goals, the project was a success, according to an audit by WWF, with 872,000,000 seedlings planted and 89% surviving as of June 2017.

But the National Accountability Bureau found that about $3m had been lost to corruption along the way. The report cited cases of nepotism, misappropriation and embezzlement of daily wages.

There is also the threat of wildfire and drought reversing some of the forest gains.

An acacia plantation in Kohat, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (Photo: WWF-Pakistan)

Abid Suleri, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sustainable Development Policy Institute, stressed the importance of choosing the right species for the arid climate and nurturing them to maturity.

“It’s easy to plant a sapling. But to turn it into a tree requires a lot of dedicated care,” he said. “It’s ambitious, but it’s doable.”

A consortium including WWF, IUCN and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), will audit the first stage of the 10 billion tree campaign with financial support from German development bank KfW.

Joe Biden’s $1.2bn budget for Green Climate Fund falls short of campaigner demands

Getting creditors on board could be the most difficult part, Halle said. “Largely because it is new. Somebody has got to move first.”

Finance for Biodiversity is discussing the idea with the UK, Canada, Germany and Italy and has approached China – by far Pakistan’s largest official creditor – despite low expectation Beijing will get involved in the early stages.

Khan has a personal connection with UK environment minister Zac Goldsmith, who is leading on nature ahead of the Cop26 climate summit. Khan was married to Jemima Goldsmith, Zac’s sister, for nearly a decade before they divorced in 2004 and they have two sons.

Zac Goldsmith has previously described Pakistan’s tree planting campaign as “extraordinary” and “a truly global inspiration”. The UK government did not respond to a request for comment.

The UN Development Programme is planning to offer technical assistance to the Pakistani government to facilitate the structuring of the bond, a spokesperson told Climate Home News.

Vikram Widge, senior advisor at the Climate Policy Initiative, told Climate Home News there is appetite among creditors for debt-for-climate and nature schemes.

Widge said innovative and creative mechanisms could have “a huge impact” if deployed to reverse biodiversity loss, and invested in ecosystem restoration, forestry and regenerative agriculture.

“I think we need to do more of this, but I think we need to be smart and sensible about it. The pilots are critical for testing and learning what works, what doesn’t,” he said. It is more appropriate for middle-income countries with the ability to service debts than countries in severe debt distress, he added.

Pakistan is due to host World Environment Day in June, which will launch a 10-year UN campaign to restore ecosystems, and could be a moment to announce a deal with creditors.

The post Pakistan explores debt-for-nature scheme to accelerate its 10 billion tree tsunami appeared first on Climate Home News.

Speaking at the One Planet Summit for biodiversity held in Paris on Monday, French president Emmanuel Macron, UK prime minister Boris Johnson promised to set aside a significant portion of climate finance for projects that help soils and plants soak up carbon, while creating habitats for wildlife.

The one-day biodiversity summit co-hosted by France, the UN and the World Bank and attended by heads of state, UN chief António Guterres and leaders of international and financial institutions, aimed to converge efforts to reverse biodiversity loss with addressing the climate crisis.

Macron committed to earmark 30% of France’s climate funding by 2030 for “nature-based solutions”. “We need to take actions now that will help us change the world and make it a better place by 2030,” he said.

As an example that links the climate and biodiversity agendas, Macron led a pledging conference for the Great Green Wall. An ambitious vision to create a 15 kilometre wide and 8,000 kilometre long strip of vegetation across 11 countries in the Sahel, the initiative will halt desertification, bolster food security and create millions of jobs, Macron said.

Mobilising new funding to protect nature was one of the summit’s four major themes. UN-endorsed research found an additional $700 billion per year is needed to reverse human destruction of the natural world.

Research by The Nature Conservancy and 15 other institutions claims nature-based solutions can provide up to 37% of the emission reductions needed by 2030 to keep global temperature rise below 2C. However, only 3% of international climate finance fits that category, with the bulk going to cut emissions from energy use.

China launches world’s largest carbon market for power sector

Joining by video link, prime minister Boris Johnson said £3bn of the UK’s £11.6bn international climate finance commitment to 2025 will be spent on supporting nature and biodiversity.

This will include marine conservation, tackling the illegal timber trade and deforestation and conserving habitats such as mangroves that protect communities from climate impacts.

“Obviously it’s right to focus on climate change and cut CO2 emissions but we won’t achieve balance with our planet unless we protect nature as well. Climate change must now be seen as part of an overall agenda to protect the natural world,” he said.

NGO Oxfam noted the funds came out of an aid budget the UK government had recently cut. “As important as [nature and biodiversity] are, the first priority of overseas aid should be the alleviation of poverty,” said campaigner Tracy Carty.

Prime minister Justin Trudeau said Canada’s future climate contributions will also include funds for biodiversity and committed up to $44m (C$55m) to the UN’s land degradation neutrality fund.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Vanessa Pérez-Cirera, deputy lead climate and energy practice at WWF, told Climate Home News that while connecting the climate and nature agendas was welcome, governments should “not play musical chairs” with climate finance by pitting different needs against each other.

Instead, funding for nature should be new and additional with donor countries demonstrating coherent policies at home to address the drivers of biodiversity loss and end harmful subsidies for fossil fuels and unstainable agriculture practices, she said.

Kelsey Perlman, forest and climate campaigner at NGO Fern, told Climate Home News that while many will want to “jump for joy at an attempt to address this financing gap for nature,” how the money is disbursed will be key.

“Everybody wants to bridge climate and biodiversity but that means that the way things have been done in the past probably need to be done significantly differently,” she said.

Perlman called for “transformative projects that put biodiversity at the forefront” and focus on the rights of communities living in protected and restored areas. Bilateral agreements between donor countries and vulnerable nations could offer an opportunity to do this while fulfilling climate goals.

“Resilience in any ecosystem is based on its biodiversity and not on the carbon that it stores,” she added.

Portugal makes deal on EU climate law ‘big priority’ of its six-month presidency

The UN biodiversity body has yet to reschedule a critical summit in Kunming, China that was postponed from 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic. Nations are expected to agree on a framework to protect the world’s biodiversity for the next decade.

An alliance of more than 50 countries committed to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030, known as the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, was formally launched at the summit, co-chaired by the Costa Rica, France and the UK.

More than 20 countries including Kenya, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mexico and Angola joined the alliance, which hopes to form the basis for an ambitious global agreement at Kunming.

Governments are also due to raise climate ambition and put the world on track to limiting global heating “well below 2C” when they meet in Glasgow, UK, for the Cop26 summit in November.

“2021 must be the year we reconcile humanity and nature,” Guterres told the summit. “The pandemic recovery is an opportunity to change course… and revive economies, build resilience and rescue biodiversity.”

“Nature-based solutions such as Africa’s Great Green Wall are especially promising,” Guterres said, adding preserving the world’s biodiversity could create 191 million jobs by 2030, citing analysis from the World Economic Forum.

Green growth champion: Focus on jobs helps poorer nations raise climate ambition

Abdoulaye Dia, executive secretary of Pan African Agency for the Great Green Wall, said additional financing for the initiative needed to consider the debt sustainability of Sahel countries, calling for 60% of new finances to come from donors and 40% from concessional finance.

An estimated $4.3 billion annually is needed to restore 8.2 million hectares of land every year in the Sahel region to 2030 to achieve the Great Green Wall’s goals.

More than $14bn of new funding was promised at the summit for Great Green Wall for 2021-2025, including new commitments from the African Development Bank, the World Bank, the European Investment Bank and the French development agency.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) announced projects worth $925m were being elaborated under a new investment programme to boost climate finance for rural populations in the Sahel, focusing on sustainable agriculture.

The GCF hopes to leverage $1 billion in resources for the Great Green Wall in 2021 and 2022.

The post France and UK lead push for climate finance to restore nature appeared first on Climate Home News.

That was the message of UN agencies during a pledging conference for governments, businesses and philanthropic organisations to bolster financial commitments for the protection and restoration of nature on Monday.

In 2019, these actors spent between $124 and $143 billion per year on activities that benefit nature worldwide, according to recent analysis by the The Nature Conservancy, the Paulson Institute and the Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability.

But the research estimated to halt the destruction of plants and animals and restore nature, the world needs to mobilise an additional $600 to $824 billion a year.

Despite calls on governments to significantly step up contributions to halt the decline of plants and wildlife, only a handful of European countries committed to increase their financial flows to protect nature.

“We currently spend less than $100 billion a year on nature – about what we spend on pet food globally,” said Achim Steiner, head of the UN Development Programme, which organised the event.

$700 billion annually is “less than 1% of global GDP and only a fraction of the $5.2 trillion that we spend on fossil fuel subsidies every year, even this year,” he said.

World misses 2020 biodiversity goals: leaked UN draft report

The event follows the publication of a UN report earlier this month finding the world has missed every one of 20 biodiversity targets to 2020 agreed in Aichi, Japan, in 2010. Funding shortfalls and harmful subsidies were identified as significant barriers to progress.

The pledging conference was the first key moment to drum up more funds ahead of major UN biodiversity talks in Kunming, China, provisionally scheduled for May 2021, when governments are due to agree on a new set of biodiversity targets to 2030.

A high-ambition coalition led by Costa Rica and France and endorsed by UN secretary general António Guterres, the EU, the UK and Canada among others, is seeking a headline target to protect 30% of the world’s land and oceans by 2030.

Elizabeth Mrema, executive secretary of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), said financing to meet the biodiversity goals needed to come “from all actors” and hoped the event “will motivate further deliberations and especially commitments to help close the the biodiversity funding gap,” she said.

Bolsonaro shifts blame for unprecedented Brazilian wetland fires

Development minister Gerd Müller said Germany will increase its €500 million ($584,000) annual investment in protecting biodiversity in developing countries.

He announced the launch of a joint initiative with public and private funders called the Legacy Landscape Fund to leverage long-term financing for protected areas in developing countries. Many lack financial mechanisms to protect nature, he said.

The announcement was welcomed by Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, who said governments, business and global organisations need to align their financing goals.

A study commissioned by the Campaign for Nature found that around $140 billion a year was needed to expand protected areas to 30% of the planet, mostly in low and middle-income countries. Current spending is only around $25 billion.

“If we close that finance gap, the financial return will be five to one,” he told Climate Home News.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Norway said it would work to create a coalition to end tropical deforestation over the next year.

The UK promised to increase biodiversity finance as part of a commitment to double funding for climate change over the next five years and said it will ask others to do the same.

Environment minister Zac Goldsmith added the government was also working to remove damaging subsidies and replace them “with a system that rewards environmental stewardship”.

Mrema, of the CBD, told political leaders the success of the new biodiversity framework relied on the mobilisation of additional resources and “the reduction or redirection of $500 billion causing harm to biodiversity, including negative incentives or subsidies” — $100bn of which, she said, were in the agricultural sector.

Data from the OECD analysed by The Nature Conservancy showed that in 2019 governments spent up to four times more money on agricultural, forestry and fisheries subsidies that degrade nature than on spending that protects it, an estimated $274–542 billion annually.

These included incentives for production or consumption that exacerbates biodiversity loss through land and ocean degradation, unsustainable exploitation of resources and water use, pollution and deforestation.

Poland agrees coal mining phase out with unions by 2049

To close the biodiversity financing gap to 2030, researchers estimate governments would need to cut harmful subsidies in the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors, by $273.9 billion annually.

“Agriculture is the biggest threat, need and opportunity” to halting biodiversity loss and restoring land and habitats, Andrew Deutz, director of conservation finance, at the Nature Conservancy, told CHN.

By transforming harmful subsidies to the agricultural sector into incentives for protection of nature, governments can help inverse the trend, he said.

Deutz added the funding conference had been a “start” but many donor countries may be unwilling to unveil pledges ahead of the biodiversity talks in Kunming.

“I am pretty optimistic that there is more finance that is going to be forthcoming in the run up to the negotiations. What we are seeing now is pre-positioning for Kunming,” he added.

On Monday, 64 political leaders pledged to transition to sustainable patterns of production and consumption and to end subsidies and incentives harmful to nature, biodiversity and climate change and increase those with a neutral or positive impacts.

The post UN summit highlights $700bn funding gap to restore nature appeared first on Climate Home News.

A draft version of the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook, seen by Climate Home News, reported that none of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets set in Japan in 2010 have been fully met.

It identified failure to account for the role of women as a significant barrier to progress, along with funding shortfalls and harmful subsidies.

Prepared by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the report provides a summary of the state of nature and biodiversity worldwide.

The final report is due to be released next Tuesday after being reviewed by negotiators, with reflections on the way forward and how Covid-19 recovery packages could help achieve biodiversity goals.

African ministers call for investment in Great Green Wall to aid Covid-19 recovery

It comes as governments are preparing to adopt a new set of biodiversity targets beyond 2020 in Kunming, China. The summit was due to take place in October 2020 but has been provisionally rescheduled to May 2021 because of Covid-19. A proposal to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and seas has formed the basis of the negotiations.

Observers to preparatory talks expressed concerns little progress has been made on mobilising finance to meet the new goals, and fear a repeat of the Aichi failure if more resources are not pledged.

The draft report assessed progress towards meeting each element of the Aichi targets. Among the 44 sub-targets assessed, 20 are ranked as “poor”, 19 as “moderate” and only five as “good”.

It found that biodiversity is not yet being brought into mainstream decision-making, harmful subsidies have not been removed on a meaningful scale and biodiversity continues to decline in places used to produce food and timber.

The loss and degradation of habitats “remains worryingly high,” it said, including in primary forests and wetlands. Last year, a major scientific report by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes) warned species extinction was accelerating, with ecosystems deteriorating at rates unprecedented in human history.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Although most countries have adopted national targets in line with the Aichi goals, “the collective ambition of national targets does not add up to the global ambition” and data gaps remain in biodiversity-rich developing countries, the draft added.

For example, a study of 106 small-scale fisheries worldwide found the harvesting of clams and other invertebrates by women had been largely ignored, leading to underestimation of the total catch and of the species targeted by fishers.

“The essential role of women in underpinning actions for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity have been consistently undervalued,” the report concluded.

Conversely, a programme in Niger to improve agricultural productivity and rehabilitate land that targeted women as well as men was highlighted for showing good results. The region saw the gradual return of wildlife such as rodents, birds, reptiles and mammals.

Unless gender issues better inform future policy decisions, it could undermine long-term efforts to halt the decline and extinction of species and allow ecosystems to recover by 2050, the report said.

Mauritius oil spill compensation could be limited by maritime law technicality

Meanwhile, financial resources for implementing the Aichi goals have increased but remain “inadequate” and funds are “especially lacking in those countries richest in biodiversity and in threatened species”.

The CBD warned that failure to meet the Aichi goals threatened the achievement of the 2030 sustainable development goals and could undermine efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Nearly a third of emissions cuts required to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming “well below 2C”  could come from nature-based solutions, it said.

It is not too late to reverse the trend if conservation efforts are scaled up and protected areas expanded, the draft said. However, it will require “a reinvention of the ways in which we collectively produce, consume and live”.

This, it added, should include maintaining and improving food security without converting large-scale forests and ecosystems into agricultural land, encouraging moderate meat consumption, greening urban areas, better protecting freshwater ecosystems and addressing climate change.

The post World misses 2020 biodiversity goals: leaked UN draft report appeared first on Climate Home News.

The study, by the New Climate Economy and World Resources Institute think-tanks in partnership with former finance ministers and World Bank executives, proposed measures including reduced deforestation, more sustainable agriculture, less-polluting energies and wider electrification of the vehicle fleet.

It estimated that a shift to greener growth could could create two million jobs and boost gross domestic product by $535 billion over the next decade compared to business as usual plans — a gain equivalent to the gross domestic product of Belgium.

Low-carbon growth would help cut the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 42% below 2005 levels by 2025, it estimated. That would exceed Brazil’s climate pledge under the 2015 Paris Agreement of a 37% reduction.

Bolsonaro, a right-wing populist, has scaled back protection for the Amazon rainforest where deforestation rates have risen since he was elected in 2018. In turn, that has led to strong criticism from foreign governments and investors.

Wind, solar generate 10% of world electricity, doubling share since 2015

“Brazil’s economy was in trouble before Covid-19 hit. Now, it is expected to contract between 8% and 9.1%,” the report said.

“The transition to low‐carbon energy technologies is a strong 21st century trend. It is no longer a matter of if, but of when it will happen,” it said, noting that both China and the European Union have made greener growth pillars of post Covid-19 economic plans.

Rogério Studart, an author of the study and a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute in Washington, expressed hopes that the report would stir debate in Brazil and abroad despite Bolsonaro’s reluctance to embrace tougher action on climate change.

“The crisis makes it very very hard not to think outside the box,” he told Climate Home News. “Opting for a low-carbon inclusive development has so many benefits.”

Kamala Harris might help ‘night and day’ shift for US on global climate diplomacy

“A green recovery is best for Brazil and Brazilians and can also make the country much more attractive to foreign investment,” echoed Caio Koch-Weser, former vice chairman of Deutsche Bank Group and a former German Deputy Minister of Finance.

Among recommendations, the report said that Brazil should do more to safeguard nature.

Brazil’s “advantage lies in the ample existing supply of natural infrastructure (e.g., forests, mangroves, and rivers), which has been proven to reduce overall costs of investments in infrastructure and logistics, if natural resources are used in a smart way,” it said.

More sustainable agriculture, including restoring degraded lands, could increase “crop yields between 30% and 300% and can increase incomes up to 3.5 times,” it said.

For transport, the report encouraged a shift to greater use of Brazil’s natural gas for the shipping industry, a less polluting option than bunker fuel. And it said that Brazil could build more electric buses, perhaps opening export markets.

Among examples of greener innovation, it said that a switch to burning farm and industrial waste, rather than illegal firewood, had brought wide-ranging benefits to five ceramic factories in Ceará state.

Their shift generated $4.5 million in revenues for local communities, improved working conditions, increased water availability and avoided the deforestation of 1,750 hectares in ten years, in addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the report said.

The post Green shift urged to revive Brazil’s economy and shield Amazon forests appeared first on Climate Home News.

The proposed biodiversity strategy, initially due to be released late March and delayed by the coronavirus pandemic, was published on Wednesday.

The document outlines a 10-year vision to restore and protect the union’s ecosystems with a budget of at least €20 billion a year.

It lays out measures to transform the agriculture sector – one of the EU’s largest drivers of biodiversity loss – by promoting agroecology practices and making a quarter of all EU agricultural land organic in the next decade.

The Commission said the strategy would be “a central element” of the EU’s recovery efforts to Covid-19, which is believed to have been transmitted to humans by animals.

Scientists have linked the increasing frequency of infectious disease outbreaks to biodiversity loss, deforestation, the destruction of habitats and the illegal wildlife trade.

In a 27-page document, the Commission argued that protecting and restoring biodiversity can have a positive economic impact on a number of sectors such as farming, fishing and tourism and boost job creation at a time when countries are reeling from the economic impacts of the pandemic.

Coronavirus lockdown cut energy-related CO2 emissions 17%, study finds

The strategy aligns with a 2030 target to protect at least 30% of land and seas proposed in the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in January. Subject to negotiation, the target was set to be finalised in Kunming, China this October, but the summit has been postponed due to coronavirus.

A third of that area should be covered by “strict protection”, under a proposal in the CBD draft text, leaving it undisturbed by human intervention. Today, only 3% of EU land and less than 1% of seas are designated as highly protected areas.

Last year, a major independent report warned ecosystems were deteriorating at rates unprecedented in human history, with climate change the third biggest driver of animal and plant species decline, after land and sea use change and overexploitation of resources and organisms.

So far, it is unclear what type of activity would be allowed to take place in different types of protected areas, prompting conservation experts to call for clarification. The Commission said it would publish further guidance and criteria, including a definition of “strict protection”, later this year.

Analysis: This oil crash is not like the others

EU member states will be asked to legally designate new protected zones and ecological corridors by 2023. The strategy encourages governments to designate as “strictly protected” ecosystems that store carbon and other greenhouse gases, such as primary and old-growth forests, peatlands and wetlands.

The plan also identified agroecology as a key principle to increase production of healthy food while reducing agriculture’s environmental impact and increase soil fertility and biodiversity.

At least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land would need to be farmed organically by 2030. Organic farming attracts younger workers and helps create 10-20% more jobs per land area than conventional farms, according to the Commission, while creating added value products.

David Cleary, global agriculture director at The Nature Conservancy, said organic farming had a role to play in addressing biodiversity and environmental issues but that it was also less efficient in terms of land use, which at scale could also put pressure on habitats.

“Organic is best thought of as a niche answer,” he told Climate Home News. “You can expand the niche a bit but it is not an across the board solution.”

UN envoy: Shorter supply chains needed to end hunger after pandemic

Other proposed measures to promote sustainable farming practices include halving the use of chemical pesticides in the next 10 years, reversing the decline of crop genetic diversity, and ensuring at least 10% of utilised agriculture land includes diverse landscapes such as hedges, trees and ponds that enhance carbon sequestration, prevent soil erosion and water depletion.

Such examples of regenerative agriculture, which limit the use of chemicals and put strong emphasis on soil health, can be scaled up, Cleary said.

The EU’s revised Common Agriculture Policy and its Farm-to-Fork strategy will be used to complement the policy framework to transform the agriculture sector.  A separate plan to protect marine ecosystems and conserve fisheries resources is expected in 2021.

Other proposed nature-based solutions that could help absorb carbon from the atmosphere while restoring biodiversity include planting trees and vegetation in both rural and urban areas.

The Commission promised to develop a roadmap to plant at least three billion additional trees across the EU by 2030 compared with current projections.

Meanwhile, it committed to promote green infrastructure into urban planning, including urban forests, parks and gardens, green roofs and walls, urban meadows and connections between green spaces that could help reduce urban heat caused by global warming.

Cleary, of The Nature Conservancy, said the Commission’s programme was “strong on ambition” but “less so on the detail and implementation” which is to be expected at this stage.

“This is a great vision of what positive change would look like on the ground, but to bring that about you have to finance it, and provide an enabling regulatory framework. A lot is still to be done on both of those,” he said.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

The EU Commission recognised there had been “clear implementation gaps” in the past for translating biodiversity strategies into action.

It committed to strengthen the enforcement of biodiversity objectives among member states with binding nature restoration targets – a move welcomed by The Campaign for Nature, which is calling on governments to protect 30% of the planet by 2030.

The Commission also pledged to promote the EU’s ambition on biodiversity using its Green Deal diplomacy and trade policy, for example promoting deforestation-free supply chains. The bloc is considering regulation on imported commodities like palm oil, soy and timber that are driving forest clearance abroad.

The union promised to “show leadership” during the delayed biodiversity talks in Kunming, China, when governments are due to adopt a new set of biodiversity targets to replace the 2020 goals agreed in Aichi, Japan, in 2010 – most of which have been missed.

The Commission said it would support calls for 30% of the world’s land and seas to be protected by 2030 and work to strengthen implementation  at the global level through increased finance and technology support.

The post EU plans to protect 30% of land and seas by 2030 for biodiversity appeared first on Climate Home News.

Covid-19, which has killed more than 180,000 people worldwide, is thought to have originated in animals, perhaps bats, before infecting people in Wuhan, China.

Global warming, a rising human population, pollution and destruction of wildlife habitats are among the factors raising the risk of such zoonotic diseases, which jump from animals to humans.

Zoonotic disease was mentioned in the last round-up of scientific knowledge by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2013-14, but the pandemic potential was not a focus.

That will change in its next assessment report, due to be published in stages over 2021-22 as the main scientific guide for government action on global warming. Each section is likely to be delayed by a few months, IPCC scientists say.

“Pushing wildlife out of natural habitats, high density living and closer interactions between animals and humans… are a risky cocktail,” said Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told Climate Home News.

Coronavirus: plane-free skies spur research into warming impact of aviation

In an Earth Day presentation on 22 April, he noted a study finding that 96% of the weight of all living mammals are people and domesticated animals such as chickens and cows, with just 4% made up of wild creatures.

Many researchers reckon that human activities have become the overwhelming force of change on the planet, and qualify for a new geological epoch dubbed the Anthropocene, based on the Greek word “anthropos”,  meaning “man”. It would succeed the current Holocene, which began at the end of the last Ice Age about 11,700 years ago.

“This is a manifestation of the Anthropocene,” said Rockström of the coronavirus pandemic.

IPCC scientists say it is urgent to find out how far humans can influence the planet before ecosystems collapse, such as tropical coral reefs that are bleaching and dying in warming waters.

“Humans are exploiting natural resources and the world up to its limits. Knowing those limits would be very, very important. It’s a matter of survival,” Hans-Otto Pörtner, of the Alfred Wegener Institute and co-chair of the IPCC working group on the impacts of climate change,  told Climate Home News.

Climate activists form new tactics and alliances amid coronavirus lockdown

Before the coronavirus, the IPCC had already planned to explore links between climate change and biodiversity by holding a first joint workshop, in May, with the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

That event will be delayed by several months, Pörtner said. More scientists were starting to look into the links between biodiversity, climate change and coronavirus and early findings will be included in the next IPCC report.

“There are similarities between the crises [of coronavirus and climate change] in the need for science-based policies – you see the same politicians failing on this [pandemic] as they are failing on the climate side,” Pörtner told CHN. “We need policymakers who have an understanding of the risks.”

He declined to single out any governments for criticism. IPCC scientists consulted for this article gave their personal views, not those of the IPCC.

The IPCC assessment report in 2014 had a chapter on health and climate change. It outlined health threats from heat waves and deadly wildfires, malnutrition because of less food production in poor regions and diseases such as malaria and dengue spread by mosquitoes expanding their ranges.

The publication of the first part of the next IPCC report looking at the physical science of climate change, including scenarios for future warming, is likely to be delayed by about 3 months from April 2021, said co-chair Valérie Masson-Delmotte, a climatologist at the Climate and Environmental Sciences Laboratory in Gif-sur-Yvette, France.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

She and Pörtner paid tribute to IPCC scientists who are continuing work despite lacking access to laboratories or field work as countries are put under lockdown. Particularly in developing nations, many struggle with weak internet links and face extra stresses in taking part – IPCC work is prestigious but unpaid.

Masson-Delmotte said the world needed to find ways to plan for the future even when there was “deep uncertainty”, a phrase used in past IPCC reports about how, for instance, to predict the future of Antarctic ice beyond 2100. A major collapse of the ice sheet would raise global sea levels by several metres.

“A clear lesson from the pandemic is that there is a global failure in preparedness, and planning for managing a known risk,” she said.

The response to the pandemic could also inform efforts to cut emissions.

Greenhouse gas emissions are predicted to fall around 6% in 2020, as non-essential work and travel is put on hold to slow the spread of Covid-19. The UN estimates that emissions will have to fall 7.6% a year over the coming decade to limit temperatures to 1.5C above pre-industrial times, the tougher target in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The post Next UN climate science report to consider lessons from coronavirus appeared first on Climate Home News.

My colleagues and I recently wrote about our high hopes for 2020 to revive the momentum lost in 2019. But those hopes were penned weeks ago, before the deadly spread of coronavirus. The pandemic has disrupted everything.

These decisions to delay are the right ones, to protect public health and to ensure equity in environmental governance.

Gathering thousands of people from across the world into close quarters for two weeks during a pandemic before sending them back across the planet would risk lives.

Until coronavirus is under control, such Conferences of the Parties – Cops – risk becoming super-spreader events.

It is fair to worry these postponements mean delayed action on climate and biodiversity challenges. Some recent developments haven’t been encouraging.

Cop26 climate talks postponed to 2021 amid coronavirus pandemic

The Paris Agreement is due for its first major review this year, but few countries have updated their 2015 pledges to turn aspiration to climate action. Norway and Japan are the only developed countries to put forward new pledges. The 2019 Madrid climate change conference left many worried about the future of climate action under the UN system.

Biodiversity was to have a ‘super year’ in 2020. Delegates launched discussions on a post-2020 global biodiversity framework to follow up the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets. The working group negotiating these new targets squeezed in a meeting this year, pre-coronavirus.

While negotiators agreed the “zero draft” was a good start, it was clear much work remains to reach agreement on a new approach to protecting nature.

But there is movement on these issues in the midst of this crisis. The EU and other countries are already considering how their post-Covid responses can fuel a just transition to a low-carbon world.

China’s ban on consuming wild animals explicitly acknowledges our destruction of the natural world is partly what led to this pandemic.

We’re sharing stories of wildlife reclaiming streets and of cleaner waters and air, and people seem to have a new-found appreciation for nature. As the conferences reschedule, they can try to seize the momentum of these tangible changes.

On the diplomatic side, there is extra time to pre-resolve potentially contentious issues in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework or to find traction for global climate action.

While the world is on various levels of lockdown, virtual discussions among diplomats can continue.

The incoming UK presidency for the climate summit can try to find a way to signal renewed momentum toward tangible climate action, in lieu of new pledges. The incoming Chinese Cop president for the biodiversity summit can use this additional time to discuss difficult issues with interested parties and smooth the negotiations ahead.

Such efforts put considerable pressure on the incoming presidencies to ensure transparency.

Back room chats and informal one-on-ones are normal – this is diplomacy, after all – but there is usually a mechanism to keep all countries informed.

During the Paris climate change conference, the French presidency held daily meetings with every coalition and some individual countries during the day and convened large, open invitation meetings in the evening. These were in person.

Zoom climate diplomacy: ‘Technology doesn’t help build trust’

The British and Chinese incoming Cop presidencies will have to innovate with a virtual format. To uphold transparency, they must find a way to keep countries informed and, crucially, engaged. Transparency is now more crucial than ever: who receives the Zoom invite has the key to global governance and those without are left on the margins.

A lack of transparency strongly contributes to a lack of equity in global environmental governance.

The powerful cannot make decisions for those with fewer resources to juggle a pandemic response and environmental action. When such inequities are apparent, negotiations break down.

When developing countries’ right to be involved is tossed aside, they can block the solutions powerful countries provide. We saw this at the Copenhagen climate change conference in 2009, when a few developing countries refused to adopt the Copenhagen Accord after being excluded from the discussions.

Postponing the 2020 climate and biodiversity conference means developing countries will have a say in global responses to climate and biodiversity crises.

The Coronavirus pandemic has yet to spread in some developing countries: they will face the onslaught later, when some of the meetings were originally to convene. International flights are already becoming rare and expensive.

Going ahead with these meetings would have excluded many voices, putting the legitimacy of any decisions on shaky ground.

Global environmental governance is for all. Some countries have greater responsibilities for the problems and others disproportionately experience the negative effects of ecosystem degradation and climate change. All must be part of the solution, or solutions will be fundamentally unsound.

Dr Jen Allan is lecturer at Cardiff University & team leader at Earth Negotiations Bulletin / IISD 

The post Postponing major environmental summits is the right thing to do appeared first on Climate Home News.

The subsistence farmers and their families collect the urine they pass – most even keep a plastic vessel in their bedroom for use at night – and store it in containers where it matures and turns into a fertiliser worth about $0.47 a litre, cheaper than chemical rivals.

The system is a shift from the use of pit latrines where the urine seeps away into the ground.

“This fertiliser is very effective on crops, it works just like most of the chemical fertilisers and it quickly reacts on the crops as opposed to the chemical fertilisers,” said Mark Folopenzi, a 45-year old farmer at Neno who lives with his wife and three children.

Malawi has a largely agricultural economy, with more than 80% of its population in rural areas and earning a living through subsistence, rain-fed crops including maize, sorghum, pulses and millet. The country is the sixth poorest in the world.

Green bailouts? – Climate Weekly

In a bid to improve agricultural productivity among subsistence farmers, the government of Malawi has since 2005 been implementing the Farm Input Subsidy Programme (FISP), which has been lauded for increasing maize yields and rural incomes.

The programme, which targets around one million of the country’s 11 million smallholder farmers, has cost 288.9 billion kwacha ($393.6 million). However, despite this expenditure, the programme has not necessarily empowered subsistence farmers, as year in and year out they seek relief from government due to hunger as a result of unpredictable weather patterns.

High population growth, deforestation and erosion make the economy especially vulnerable to worsening climate change. The impact of erratic rains, prolonged dry spells and severe floods has been aggravated by a lack of agricultural resources, including fertilisers.

While farmers face many challenges, the biggest cause of crop failure is low rainfall and low nutrients in the soil. Maize, the country’s staple crop, demands lots of nutrients, and growing the plant without fertilisers is difficult.

A study by the International Food Policy Research Institute found that while subsidising fertiliser prices increases use, yields, and household income, it discourages use of organic-based materials and methods to maintain soil fertility.

With the ever-rising cost of chemical fertilisers, subsistence farmers in Malawi have been finding it hard to afford chemical fertilisers, and they have been trying to find affordable and sustainable alternatives – such as urine.

(Photo: Madalitso Kateta)

Folopenzi said the introduction of Bionitrate fertiliser, which is made by maturing human urine in plastic containers, has helped farmers amid the ever-rising costs.

“We can’t grow crops without applying fertilisers as we used to some fifteen years ago. The soil has over the years lost its fertility and growing crops without fertiliser results in bad harvest and hunger,” said Folopenzi.

“This [Bionitrate] fertiliser is very good and we are excited that we can also save a lot of money if we can produce our own fertiliser from the urine we can collect at home,” he said.

Sabawo Chikuni, another farmer from Neno, was previously worried the Bionitrate fertiliser was unhygienic and could be infected with parasites. But having seen its effects, he now plans to use the fertiliser in the winter cropping season.

“I previously had negative feelings on the use of human urine on crops. I felt like this could not be a better alternative to chemical fertilisers. But looking at how the maize in the gardens of farmers that are using this fertiliser has grown, I believe government could be doing us justice if it promoted this fertiliser,” he said.

Bionitrate fertiliser is being championed by Environmental Industries, a private non-profit company that has been working with different local and international organisations in Malawi to promote the use of biotechnology and produce fertilisers which are economically sustainable, environmentally friendly, and safe to use.

Governments urged to attach green strings to long-term coronavirus recovery plans

Goodfellow Phiri, director at Environmental Industries, said Bionitrate fertilisers are safe to use and do not pose any health hazards, despite health and ethical questions raised by some farmers.

He told Climate Home News that before the urine is turned into fertiliser, it ages and the chemical processes in the urine turn it from an acid to an alkaline, making the product very salty and not habitable for germs.

“In the alkaline state, the PH is beyond seven and the product is salty. In this salty state, all the germs are dead and the fertiliser is odorless and free from germs. However, if mishandled during use, it can be contaminated,” said Phiri.

The fertiliser also helps conserve the soil by raising its PH through its chemical composition, giving it the same effect as agricultural lime on acidic soils.

Phiri’s company collects 40 litres of urine a day and matures 14,600 litres of Bionitrate urine per year. The Bionitrate urine is sold at K350.00 ($0.47) per litre as opposed to the K470.00 ($0.64) per kilo for chemical fertiliser. For an acre of maize, a farmer needs 50 litres of Bionitrate urine.

Urinals at “urine harvesters” are equipped with a urine trap which collects the urine into a 20-litre container, and the urine is later transferred into a 200-litre maturing tank before being packaged into 20-litre and five-litre containers.

(Photo: Madalitso Kateta)

Phiri said the company was currently training farmers on how to process their own urine rather than buy the liquid.

“Our goal is to train farmers on how to construct urine harvesters which can enable them to collect enough urine which they can turn into Bionitrate fertiliser. This is the only way we can make the farmers self-reliant as the cost of fertiliser keeps rising,” he said.

Apart from harvesting urine for fertiliser production, the farmers can create business opportunities by constructing public urine harvesting toilets, which they could charge to use, he said.

Coronavirus: in Hawaii’s air, scientists seek signs of economic shock on CO2 levels

“We are training farmers on how they can get maximum results from this natural fertiliser. However, the challenge that we are currently facing is low adoption because of mindset change towards fertilisers made from human waste,” he said, before adding that demand for Bionitrate fertiliser was steadily rising among subsistence farmers.

Environmental Industries has been working with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and several non-governmental organisations. It is currently cooperating with the government of Malawi and seed companies to popularise Bionitrate fertiliser across the country.

“This is the right path for Malawi to follow, as the 42 billion Kwacha we spend annually on the Farm Input Subsidy Programme is too much considering that it only benefits one million farmers out of the 11 million active farmers,” said Phiri.

Masauko Dzumani, the Agricultural Extension Development Officer (AEDO) for Neno Extension Planning Area (EPA), said Bionitrate fertilisers were working on crops just as well as chemical fertilisers, and his office has been recommending farmers start using this natural fertiliser.

“We have been doing a trial of the effectiveness of the Bionitrate fertiliser and we have observed that the farmers that have been using it are having the same crops as those that have applied chemical fertilisers like calcium ammonium nitrate and nitrogen phosphorus and potassium,” said Dzumani.

For the farmers using Bionitrate, they have found an effective, cheap, way to sustain their crops.

And it all starts with a plastic pot by the bed.

This article was produced as part of an African reporting programme supported by Future Climate for Africa.

The post Malawi’s farmers grow crops with ‘magic liquid’ fertiliser appeared first on Climate Home News.

Governments are quite rightly focusing on emergency response measures to slow the spread of the virus, save as many lives as possible and take whatever steps they can to relieve the economic hardship people in every country are already facing.

We don’t yet know how much longer it will be until the virus is brought to heel and how much worse things will get until that point. That is the reality we are all trying to come to terms with.

For many of us in the climate and environmental communities, we are simultaneously trying to come to terms with the fact that the landscape for restoring balance to the world’s ecosystems has fundamentally changed.

At the start of the year, much of our planning revolved around major milestones like the biodiversity summit in China and the climate summit in the UK, and how these moments might drive more action from countries, regions, cities, businesses and others to reduce emissions and protect and restore nature.

Now it appears that if we can get beyond the immediate medical emergency, our focus will need to shift from summits to stimulus.

Governments urged to attach green strings to long-term coronavirus recovery plans

Will governments direct spending in ways that increase emissions and continue to degrade nature? Or will they have the foresight to not only tackle the immediate economic impacts, but also accelerate the transition to resilient, low-carbon and nature-rich societies and economies?

That is likely still some time off, although we are already seeing early examples of the paths governments can choose.

For example, South Korea’s ruling Democratic Party has announced plans for a “Green New Deal” to boost its economy and fulfil its pledge to achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. Similar questions are springing up around the world, including in the EU, with debate already emerging whether the bloc should double down on the EU Green Deal, or to back away from this ambitious plan.

Much of the discussion so far has focused on the opportunity for economic stimulus packages to hasten the transition away from fossil fuels toward clean energy sources. This is critical, but we must also consider the role that nature-based solutions can play.

To start, protecting natural ecosystems is one of the most immediate steps governments can take to reduce the risk of future pandemics.

Science shows that humanity’s destruction of biodiversity is creating the conditions for new viruses and diseases. Deforestation drives wild animals out of their natural habits and closer to human populations, creating greater opportunities for viruses like Covid-19 to spread.

Coronavirus pandemic shows we need new ways to look after the Earth and each other

But nature-based solutions, as a broad array of actions, deserve much deeper consideration as governments decide how to design their economic responses to the coronavirus.

The bottom line is that, in addition to being an essential component of the response to climate change, nature-based solutions also provide a range of other benefits that will help communities recover from the immediate impacts, as well as support more resilient and sustainable societies and economies in the longer term.

Natural ecosystems provide clean air and clean water, they make communities more resilient to the growing impacts of a warming climate, like protection against floods and hurricanes, and they support and create jobs, particularly in more rural and vulnerable communities.

Analysis last year by the Food and Land Use Coalition found that key transitions in the world’s food and land use systems alone could unlock $4.5 trillion in new business opportunities each year by 2030.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

This is at the same time as saving costs of $5.7 trillion a year in damage to people and the planet. There is also increasing recognition that ‘green infrastructure’ – forests, wetlands, and mangroves for example – can perform better and at lower cost than ‘grey infrastructure’ for services such as flood management, water purification and storage and irrigation.

The potential here is huge: the OECD estimates global financing needs for water supply infrastructure at $6.7 trillion by 2030 and $22.6 trillion by 2050.

Governments must ensure that public spending to address the current economic crisis aims to both reduce emissions and restore balance to all the Earth’s natural systems. Long-term stimulus investment must be used to build a better future; this means spending needs to be aligned with both halving emissions and stopping nature loss by 2030.

Lucy Almond is the director of Nature4Climate, a consortium of some of the world’s leading nature conservation, climate and business organisations that aims to increase investment and action on nature-based solutions in support of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

The post From summits to stimulus: Nature-based solutions can help appeared first on Climate Home News.

Governments had been due to agree a global treaty in April to safeguard life in seas beyond the national jurisdiction of coastal states, a poorly regulated region accounting for two-thirds of the global ocean.

Over-fishing, shipping, plastic pollution and the potential of seabed mining are among the threats already affecting marine ecosystems. Meanwhile, climate impacts such as warming waters, rising acidity and shifting current patterns are also undermining the resilience of marine biodiversity.

A resolution adopted by consensus by the plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly on Wednesday agreed to postpone the talks to “the earliest possible available date” because of the coronavirus outbreak.

The fourth and final round of government negotiations had been due to take place at the UN headquarters in New York from 23 March to 3 April.

“Very sad but this is the right thing to do. We will be back and conclude our negotiations of this important new treaty to protect our oceans,” Catherine Boucher, legal advisor to Canada’s mission to the UN, wrote in a tweet.

Coronavirus delays global efforts for climate and biodiversity action

This is the latest of a number of climate and biodiversity meeting to be cancelled or postponed because of the virus.

Observers and delegates previously expressed concerns the March session would be unable to break deadlock between nations and that at least one more negotiating round would be needed. A UN document from February listing governments’ proposed changes to a draft treaty text runs to 350 pages.

There are currently few guidelines, for instance, for setting up marine protected areas in the high seas, which conservation experts say are necessary to prevent biodiversity losses. The Marine Conservation Institute estimates that only 1.2% of the high seas are in protected areas.

The negotiations, which started in September 2018, have so far made little progress on some of the most important issues. This includes the governance process to ensure rules on state and companies’ activities in the high seas are respected.

Sandra Schoettne, of Greenpeace’s Protect the Oceans campaign, told Climate Home News she hoped the postponement “doesn’t slow political momentum” and urged governments to “use the additional time wisely to adopt a treaty as robust as possible”.

“A bit more time to resolve some of the differences on the more tricky aspects of the negotiations is not a bad thing,” Callum Roberts, professor of marine conservation at the University of York, UK, told CHN.

“We don’t want to botch it by rushing,” he said. “And a poorly attended meeting wouldn’t help.”

Power structures over gender make women more vulnerable to climate change

One of the sticking points in the negotiations is about how to share any benefits from genetic resources found in the high seas, such as health supplements developed from Antarctic krill, or cosmetics from creatures found around thermal vents on the floor of the Pacific Ocean.

Developed nations generally favour allowing companies to benefit most from the findings since they are the ones taking the investment risks. Poorer nations say they should get a share of the benefits.

For Peggy Kalas, director of the High Seas Alliance, a network of organisations working to protect the high seas, one of the key questions is who will be responsible for taking management decisions in protected areas in the high seas.

“We cannot even predict or expect what will happen in the high seas in the future,” she said, citing a number of geoengineering activities and plans. “We want this agreement to be future-proof.”

“We would like the Conference of the Parties to take these decisions,” she told CHN, adding some countries preferred for sectoral authorities to be responsible for governance.

Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

Despite the number of issues left unresolved, Kalas said that if governments are able to advance their positions before the talks resume later this year, “this fourth meeting could be the final one”.

But the delay also means the re-scheduled meetings risks running into an already packed UN timetable on biodiversity this year.

This includes preparations for UN biodiversity talks in Kunming, China, in October when countries are due to agree on a global framework to protect the world’s plants and wildlife beyond 2020.

A number of countries have backed calls to protect at least 30% of the Earth’s lands and seas to halt the destruction of the planet’s biodiversity.

“The way to protect at least 30% of global oceans is by including the high seas,” Kalas said. “And to do that, you need this global ocean treaty.”

The post Coronavirus: UN delays talks on global ocean biodiversity treaty appeared first on Climate Home News.

The 23 ex-ministers from six continents, a group founded by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, also urged governments to complete a UN treaty this year to safeguard life in the high seas, the area beyond the legal jurisdiction of coastal states that makes up two-thirds of the ocean.

“We endorse setting a global target of strongly protecting at least 30% of the land and 30% of the ocean by 2030,” the group, known as the Aspen Ministers Forum, said in a statement about goals for expanding parks and other protected areas for wildlife.

Signatories included Germany’s Joschka Fischer, Britain’s Malcolm Rifkind, Egypt’s Amre Moussa, Argentina’s Susana Malcorra, Israel’s Tzipi Livni and Australia’s Alexander Downer.

Governments are due to meet in Kunming, China, in October, to set new targets for 2030 to try to avert what scientists say is the worst extinction crisis since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. One million species are now at risk from human activities, a UN report said last year.

Locusts plague destroys livelihoods in Kenya but ‘biggest threat yet to come’

The 2030 goals are meant to build on goals set a decade ago to protect at least 17% of the land and 10% of the seas by 2020.

So far, about 15.1% of terrestrial areas and 7.9% of the seas are protected, according to an overview by the UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre. But the Brazilian Amazon, for instance, is under renewed threat from economic development and many fish stocks are at risk.

On land, the loss of habitats, over-exploitation, pollution, climate change and invasive species are among threats to creatures ranging from giraffes to beetles. Over-fishing, plastic pollution and acidification of caused by carbon dioxide emissions are undermining life in the seas.

“Humanity sits on the precipice of irreversible loss of biodiversity and a climate crisis that imperils the future for our grandchildren and generations to come,” the former ministers wrote.

“The world must act boldly, and it must act now,” they wrote.

In documents released last month by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, one proposed goal is for protected areas and other conservation measures to cover “at least [30%] of land and sea areas with at least [10%] under strict protection” by 2030.

The brackets signal that the numbers are not yet agreed.

“It’s good news that biodiversity is being recognised at a higher priority,” Alex Rogers, Science Director for REV Ocean and a visiting professor of zoology at Oxford University, told Climate Home News of the ministers’ appeal.

“The loss of biodiversity is hair-raising,” he said.

But he said government definitions of protected areas, including the 2020 UN targets, are often vague with loopholes that allow continued activities such as deforestation, road-building, hunting and fishing.

He said he hoped Tuesday’s call for “strongly protecting” the seas, for instance, would mean areas where fishing is banned or highly restricted.

Climate Home News launches front line climate justice reporting programme

Rogers said that he recently took part in a yet-to-be published scientific report for a high level panel of world leaders that recommends that 30-40% of the ocean should be protected.

It also said that fisheries policies, such as setting catch quotas, should try to assess the wider risks on biodiversity. Catching too much herring, for instance, can undermine the amount of food available for predators such as seabirds or tuna which also feed on the fish.

(Corrected on 18 February to update Alex Rogers’ affiliation and to show that the high level scientific panel is of world leaders, not limited to the UK)

The post Protect 30% of Earth to avert ‘irreversible’ biodiversity loss – former ministers say appeared first on Climate Home News.