Most developing countries offer a straightforward answer: keep the status quo, meaning only the countries classified as industrialised when the UN climate treaty was adopted in 1992.

But this club of developed nations, vocally led by the European Union and the United States, argues that the world has changed dramatically over the past three decades.

They now want other countries that have become wealthier – and more polluting – to pitch in for the post-2025 New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), set to be agreed at the COP29 climate summit in Baku this November.

China targeted

The EU wrote this week, in a document submitted as part of the NCQG negotiations, that “the collective goal can only be reached if parties with high [greenhouse gas]-emissions and economic capabilities join the effort”.

The US echoed that position in its latest submission, arguing that “those with the capacity to support others” in pursuing action to cut emissions and boost climate resilience “must also be accountable” for delivering on the climate finance target.

But, as governments polish their arguments ahead of the next round of talks in mid-September, climate finance experts warn of an uphill battle to get everyone to agree to a fair and accurate way to broaden the donor base.

FAO draft report backs growth of livestock industry despite emissions

For instance, as the world’s top polluter and the second-largest economy, China is the primary target of the finger-pointing. But, when the country’s emissions and wealth are divided by its enormous population, China does not rank among the main candidates for an expanded contributors’ pool, according to climate finance studies.

At annual climate talks in the German city of Bonn in June, China’s negotiator reacted angrily at suggestions his country should become a donor. “We have no intention to make your number look good or be part of your responsibility as we are doing all we can to save the world,” he said.

Who pays?

Switzerland and Canada have been the first nations to propose precise criteria to expand the list of contributors beyond developed countries.

The Swiss negotiators pitched two detailed metrics in their latest submission early this month.

The first would target the ten largest current emitters of carbon dioxide that also have a gross national income (GNI) per capita – adjusted for purchasing power parity – of more than $22,000.

Under this measure, Saudi Arabia and Russia would be included. China would too if it is calculated based on current international dollars, which Climate Home understands would be the Swiss intention, even though the proposal does not specify.

But China would be excluded if GNI per capita were based on constant 2021 international dollars, highlighting the ambiguity of the proposals at this point.

Populous nations with large absolute emissions like India, Indonesia, Brazil and Iran would be left out because the average wealth of their residents falls below the threshold, according to World Bank data.

Similarly, Canada’s proposal – released last Friday after this article was first published – singles out the top ten emitters but with a slightly lower GNI per capita threshold of $20,000. In this case, China would be included whichever GNI calculation is used.

The second category in the Swiss proposal targets countries that have cumulative past and current CO2 emissions per capita of at least 250 tonnes and a purchasing power parity-adjusted gross national income per capita of more than $40,000.

Assuming the Swiss proposal means emissions starting in 1990, then fossil fuel-producers in the Gulf like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain would be included, alongside South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Czechia and Poland.

But climate finance experts told Climate Home they are sceptical such strict criteria will work at the negotiating table and make it into a final decision.

“Discussing thresholds and indicators is a technical and politically charged issue, and it will be very difficult to get everyone to agree on them,” Laetitia Pettinotti, a research fellow at ODI, told Climate Home. She added that countries need to be encouraged to consider whether their emissions and GNI per capita are similar to those of developed countries, while also taking into account their climate vulnerability.

Pieter Pauw, assistant professor at the Eindhoven University of Technology, said the current system is “outdated and increasingly dysfunctional”, but the focus should be on making it less rigid rather than finding “arbitrary” ways to add more countries to a list.

Pauw is the co-author of a new study looking at options to increase the number of climate finance providers.

New “net recipients” category

The paper found that several developing countries, including China, Saudi Arabia and Russia, have shown appetite to finance multilateral development funds, such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, but not those dedicated to climate action.

“It’s because the climate discourse is so politicised now,” Pauw said. “They are afraid that agreeing to contribute to a climate finance goal would set a precedent and burden them with more responsibilities.”

“It is important to find a way to have them join the ‘contributors club’ without putting a stamp on them and saying ‘OK, now you’re on the same level as developed countries’,” he added.

The study suggests one way out of the deadlock: instead of labelling countries rigidly as pure providers or recipients of climate aid, a third category of “net recipients” could be created. These would be nations that make financial contributions of any amount, while also being able to receive money at the same time.

“This compromise would allow countries to maintain their ‘developing’ status that gives them a right to receive finance where it is needed,” said Pauw. “But it also incentivises them to play a more proactive role that better reflects their new capabilities and responsibilities.”

Better transparency

A separate study by UK think-tank ODI suggests that many developing countries are voluntarily providing climate aid to fellow developing states, but their contributions go unrecognised at the moment because of a lack of transparency.

For example, China contributed over $10 billion in climate finance through its contributions to multilateral development banks and funds between 2015 and 2022, according to a newly updated ODI analysis shared with Climate Home and due to be released in early September.

US turns against plastic producers, boosting hopes for ambitious treaty

Pettinotti thinks that the donor base could be expanded by recognising these contributions and bringing them to the surface through a better reporting system.

“There is not going to be coercion – that is just not going to work,” she told Climate Home. “Making space for a bottom-up, self-determined position is all we can do to encourage more countries to contribute.”

Developing-world opposition

Many developing countries have opposed any official discussion over an expansion of the donor base in the talks so far, claiming that is not part of the NCQG working group’s mandate. They have also complained that, while fixating on this issue, developed countries have failed to put forward proposals on other key elements of the NCQG, such as the size of the funding target.

Avantika Goswami, climate lead at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, told Climate Home that developed countries have “a moral imperative” to provide climate finance because of their historically high emissions over the past century.

“The contributor-base expansion debate cannot be resolved within the narrow timeline of November 2024 when the NCQG is due to be decided”, she added. “Pushing for this expansion as a bargaining chip will only derail constructive discussions.”

This article was updated on 19/8 to include a proposal by Canada released after the article had been first published. It was also updated to remove a reference to Bermuda as a potential donor, as it is a British overseas territory. 

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Switzerland and Canada propose ways to expand climate finance donors appeared first on Climate Home News.

Founded over a decade ago, Climate Home News is a leading independent digital media outlet covering climate change. We aim to be the go-to newsroom for a global community seeking to understand the political, social and economic drivers of the climate crisis and responses to it.

As efforts toward a just energy transition expand in the Global South, we plan to bring the latest developments across Africa to our international audience of professionals working on climate and energy issues.

In this new reporting role at Climate Home News, the successful candidate will produce regular news stories and features covering energy transition on the African continent and at the global level, working closely with our editors.

We seek applications from well-connected journalists with a few years’ experience, capable of proposing story ideas, cultivating sources, analysing data, and delivering accurate copy in English. Our reporters are also expected to align with our rigorous and ethical journalistic standards.

Salary range: USD25,000-30,000 per year depending on experience and location

Location: 100% remote working (based in Africa – some travel will likely be required)

Term: Full time for a 12-month fixed-term freelance contract, with a possibility of renewal

Application deadline: September 1, 2024

Responsibilities:

• Identify high-impact stories on the politics of the global and African energy transitions of interest to our specialist audience
• Produce weekly news stories and regular features, under the supervision of our news editor and general editor
• Cultivate sources in the energy sector and explore varied reporting techniques including data analysis, field visits and analysing company reports and documents
• Contribute to Climate Home’s popular weekly newsletter
• Use reporting skills to produce multimedia content for social channels, including video scripts and infographics
• Seek out and develop reporting and publishing partnerships with African media outlets to increase our reach and impact

Requirements: 

• At least three years of media reporting experience
• Spoken and written fluency in English
• Self-starter who is comfortable interacting with everyone from local communities to governments and businesses
• Ability to work remotely and coordinate tasks with an international team

Desirable qualifications:

• Experience working in the international field
• A track record of interest in climate change and energy issues
• Experience with investigative and accountability reporting
• Languages other than English
• Proficiency in photography and video

How to apply:

Please send a full CV, a cover letter and links to three recently published samples of your work using this form. The deadline for applications is Sept. 1, 2024.

Note that applicants selected for interview will first be asked to complete a short writing test.

As an organisation committed to diversity and inclusion, we particularly welcome applications from citizens of African countries, women and non-binary people.

Due to an expected high number of applications, we will only be able to respond to those we would like to pursue (this will be no later than mid-September). Thank you for your understanding.

The post Climate Home News is hiring! Apply to be our new energy transition reporter (Africa-based) appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the talks in Sofia, Bulgaria, most countries supported a faster process that would see three flagship reports assessing the state of climate science delivered by mid-2028, in time for the next global stocktake – the UN’s scorecard of collective climate action.

But a group of high-emitting developing countries made up of China, India, Saudi Arabia, Russia and South Africa – backed by Kenya – opposed an accelerated timeline, citing concerns that it would be harder to include scientists from the Global South, three sources present at the talks told Climate Home.

Governments were unable to reach a decision for the second time this year after “fraught talks” in January ended with the same outcome. The issue will be debated again at the next gathering in February 2025, while a separate expert meeting is tasked with drafting the outline of those reports by the end of 2024.

Fight over climate science

Adão Soares Barbosa, IPCC representative for Timor-Leste within the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) group, expressed his disappointment over the lack of agreement in Sofia resulting from “strong polarisation in the room”.

“If the assessment reports are not able to feed information into the global stocktake process, what are they good for?” he said, speaking to Climate Home.

Joyce Kimutai, who represented Kenya at the Sofia talks, said her country’s opposition to the proposed shortened timeline was “absolutely not intended to frustrate the process” but to highlight the challenges countries with more limited resources would be facing.

“With such a tight timeline, it is likely that we will produce a report that is not comprehensive, not robust. We found that very problematic,” she told Climate Home on Monday.

IPCC delegates exchange views in an informal huddle in Sofia, Bulgaria. Photo: IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou

The primary purpose of the IPCC is to provide credible scientific assessments to the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC) and national decision-makers. The findings of its reports – which are usually compiled over several years by scientists working on a voluntary basis around the world – have been highly influential. They synthesise the latest research on climate change, as well as efforts to curb planet-heating emissions and adapt to the impacts of global warming.

The sixth series, whose final report was issued in March 2023, played a prominent role in informing the first UNFCCC global stocktake which resulted in governments agreeing for the first time to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels” at COP28 in Dubai last December.

But some fossil fuel-rich countries like Saudi Arabia – which have pushed back against clear language on the need to cut production – have previously opposed strong recognition of IPCC reports in UNFCCC negotiations.

The UN climate body has officially requested that its scientific counterpart align its activities with the timeline of the next global stocktake. The IPCC’s input will be “invaluable” for the international review of climate action, Simon Stiell, chief of the UN climate body, told the IPCC meeting in January.

Reputation ‘at risk’

As he opened the session in Sofia, the IPCC chair Jim Skea warned of a “complex and testing” agenda.

The discussion over the report production schedule would have “far-reaching implications in terms of the timeliness of our products, and the inclusivity of both our own processes and the science that is being assessed”, he added. 

Scientists and government officials were presented with a proposal drafted by the IPCC secretariat – its administrative arm – which would see the assessment reports completed between May and August 2028. That would be a few months before the global stocktake process is scheduled to end in November 2028.

The IPCC must produce its flagship report in time for the next UN global stocktake

A majority of countries, including EU member states, the UK, the US and most vulnerable developing nations, supported the proposal, stressing the importance of the scientific reports feeding into the global stocktake, according to sources and a summary of discussions by the IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin. Many supporters added that the IPCC’s reputation would otherwise be at risk.

Small island states and least-developed countries argued that IPCC input is crucial for those that lack capacity to produce their own research and are most vulnerable to the immediate impacts of climate change, according to the IISD summary.

But a dozen developing countries – with India, Saudi Arabia and China being the most vocal – opposed speeding up the process, arguing that more time is needed to ensure greater inclusion of experts and research from the Global South, which would result in “robust and rigorous” scientific output.

South Africa, Russia, Kenya, Algeria, Burundi, Congo, Jordan, Libya and Venezuela expressed similar views, according to IISD.

More time for more voices

India said that “producing the best science needs time, haste leads to shoddy work”, while Saudi Arabia claimed that the shortened timeline would “lead to incomplete science and would be a disservice to the world”, according to the IISD summary of the discussions.

Kenya’s Kimutai told Climate Home that producing scientific literature and reviewing submissions takes a lot of time and, unlike their counterparts in richer countries, scientists in the Global South can rarely count on the help of junior researchers at well-funded institutions.

“We love this process – we find it important,” she added, “but we’re trying to say that, while it may be an easy process in other regions, it is not for us”.

As first airline drops goal, are aviation’s 2030 targets achievable without carbon offsets?

The IPCC has long struggled with ensuring adequate representation of expert voices from the Global South. Only 35% of the authors working on its sixth and latest assessment report hailed from developing countries, according to a study published in the journal Climate, up from 31% in the previous cycle.

In Sofia, several delegates pointed out that the IPCC is working to improve inclusivity and that a slight extension of the schedule would not be the solution. Similar views were aired by forty IPCC authors from developing countries in a letter circulated ahead of last week’s talks, urging countries to ensure that the reports are ready in time for the global stocktake.

While recognising concerns over the inclusion of under-represented communities, they argued that it would not be achieved by allowing more time but through “deliberate efforts to counterbalance long-standing inequalities” in the research world.

Writing for Climate Home, Malian scientist Youba Sokona, one of the letter’s authors, warned that the IPCC risks losing its relevance and influence over global climate policy-making if its output cannot be used in the global stocktake.

IPCC Chair Jim Skea gavels the session to a close. Photo: Photo by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou

Despite lengthy exchanges, scientists in Sofia could not find a solution and decided to postpone a decision on the timeline until the next IPCC session in February 2025, when countries will also need to agree on the outline of the reports’ content.

Kenya’s Kimutai has proposed a compromise that would see reports on adaptation and mitigation completed in time for the global stocktake, with a third on the physical science of climate change coming in later.

Richard Klein, a senior researcher at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and a lead author of previous IPCC reports, told Climate Home the ongoing row was “problematic”. “With these delays, a shorter [report] cycle in time for the global stocktake may not be feasible anymore, which in turn makes it less likely we will see ambitious nationally-determined contributions (NDCs) after that process,” he warned.

Expert scientists from the IPCC will meet again this December at a “scoping” session to sketch out a framework for what the assessment reports should include.

Barbosa of Timor-Leste is worried that those discussions will also become “heavily politicised”.

“We are concerned that high-emitting developing countries will try water down the work on emission-cutting measures and keep out strong messages on things like the need to phase out fossil fuels,” he told Climate Home.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post IPCC’s input into key UN climate review at risk as countries clash over timeline appeared first on Climate Home News.

July will be a month of records. Athletes and spectators gather for the Paris Olympics to celebrate feats of human endurance and record-breaking achievement. But July is also seeing records of another kind breaking.

This month we experienced the hottest day ever in over 120,000 years meaning global temperatures are now the highest they have ever been as a result of climate change caused by burning coal, oil and gas, and deforestation. 

This also means real-world impacts – every day, every hour and every minute. Just in the past few weeks, Hurricane Beryl destroyed parts of the Caribbean, a heatwave caused power outages in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and there were severe floods in Kenya. 

In just four months, Azerbaijan will be in the global spotlight for two weeks when it will be responsible for spearheading UN climate talks in Baku. Government, businesses, media and civil society are anxious to know what the COP29 Presidency has been doing to shift the gears on diplomacy and ramp up global ambition. 

COP29 priorities

In its recent Letter to Parties, the COP29 Presidency outlined some of its processes leading to Baku. It said its two pillars are to “Enhance Ambition, Enable Action”.  It has pursued a raft of initiatives, but these will not pave the way for the systems change that is required.

The task at hand is clear.

First, we need a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels. Second, we need a strong climate finance goal to deliver on this. Third, we need countries to submit ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) that respond to the Global Stocktake and robustly adhere to the science. 

Comment: A global wealth tax is needed to help fund a just green transition

The COP29 Presidency has a crucial strategic role to play in building pressure on countries to demonstrate what they are doing to meet all these commitments. Finding the landing ground on these pillars cannot wait until November. The real work is done in the months and weeks before the summit.

Let’s not forget that the COP28 deal was meant to mark the “beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era. Yet, progress on this since the Dubai summit has been woefully slow. The window for a 1.5℃ future is closing fast and Azerbaijan, a significant fossil exporter itself, cannot ignore the root cause of the problem.

Finance deal

Similarly, we must avert a failure to agree to the new climate finance goal in Baku.

The Presidency says negotiating a fair and ambitious New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) is their priority. If that’s the case, then the clock is ticking. Effectively leading these finance talks will require proactive steps and a recognition of the scale of financing required. At least $1 trillion of investment is needed for climate and environment by 2030.

Azerbaijan’s proposal for a  Climate Finance Action Fund (yet another fund with insufficient money!) would rightly mean a mechanism through which polluters do finally pay. However, this cannot be used as an excuse for countries to continue with fossil fuel expansion.

UAE’s ALTÉRRA invests in fund backing fossil gas despite “climate solutions” pledge

The recent appointment of Denmark’s Dan Jørgensen and Egypt’s Yasmine Fouad as a Ministerial Pairing for the finance deal is welcome.

But in addition to their support, there has to be political will for system change. There must be alignment on areas of agreement and expectations. Balancing the needs and demands of 190+ countries is challenging. But by engaging with champions from business, government and civil society across the board it can be done.

Civil society engagement

Azerbaijan does not need to reinvent the wheel with shiny new deals. Creating the enabling conditions and encouraging countries to implement existing commitments can have the greatest impact on tackling the climate crisis. 

Azerbaijan will benefit from continuing to engage tirelessly with credible actors who can help it avoid pitfalls and needless mistakes. Sporadic consultations will not suffice; consistent dialogue is key.

Lastly, Azerbaijan should be prepared for intense scrutiny from the media and civil society.

In the coming weeks and months, it must engage openly and transparently with those who will question its actions and motives. They must avoid increasing distrust in the process. They must directly address concerns over the COP being co-opted by fossil fuel interests as well as reports that it is intensifying a crackdown on civil society. 

Azerbaijan’s role as the host of COP29 places it in a position of significant responsibility and opportunity not only to advance the negotiations but build a legacy for the climate regime and future generations. Setting clear timelines, leveraging expert advice, intensifying finance talks and keeping pressure on countries to deliver can all result in a successful COP.

The post It’s time for Azerbaijan to shift gears on diplomacy ahead of COP29 appeared first on Climate Home News.

Calling for global action to limit the devastating consequences, the head of the United Nations said “billions of people are facing an extreme heat epidemic – wilting under increasingly deadly heatwaves”.

Extreme-heat events have been getting more frequent, intense and longer-lasting in recent decades as a result of human-made climate change.

Guterres’ appeal comes as the record for the world’s hottest day was broken twice on consecutive days this week, according to Europe’s Copernicus Climate Change Service. Monday beat Sunday, with the global average surface air temperature reaching 17.16 Celsius, as parts of the world sweltered through fierce heatwaves from the Mediterranean to Russia and Canada.

Guterres said the UN had just received preliminary data indicating that Tuesday “was in the same range”, which would make a third hottest straight day on record, if confirmed.

In a speech, he noted that heat – driven by “fossil fuel-charged, human-induced climate change” – is estimated to kill almost half a million people a year, about 30 times more than tropical cyclones.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres speaks during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, December 1, 2023. COP28/Christophe Viseux/Handout via REUTERS

This year alone, extreme heat struck highly vulnerable communities across the Sahel region, killed at least 1,300 pilgrims in Mecca during Hajj and shut down schools across Asia and Africa affecting more than 80 million children.

“And we know it’s going to get worse. Extreme heat is the new abnormal,” Guterres added in his speech to journalists at UN headquarters in New York.

The Secretary-General’s “call for action” brings together ten specialised UN agencies for the first time in an urgent and concerted push to strengthen international cooperation in addressing extreme heat.

Focus on most vulnerable

Guterres listed four areas where greater efforts could be made to keep people, societies and economies safer from the negative consequences of rising global temperatures.

He emphasised the importance of “caring for the most vulnerable” – with those at greatest risk including poor people in urban areas, pregnant women, people with disabilities, the elderly, children, those who are sick and people who are displaced from their homes.

Households living in poverty often live in substandard homes without access to cooling, he added, appealing for a boost in access to low-carbon cooling and expanded use of natural measures – which include planting trees for shade – and better urban design, alongside a ramp-up of heat warning systems.

Graphic from Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change

Workers also need more protection, he said, as a new report from the International Labour Organization warned that over 70 percent of the global workforce – 2.4 billion people – are now at high risk of extreme heat, especially in Asia-Pacific, Africa and the Arab States.

The UN is calling on governments to urgently review laws and regulations on occupational safety and health to integrate provisions for extreme heat, including the right to refuse working in extreme hot weather.

Energy transition and adaptation

A third area targeted by the UN for action is making economies and societies better able to withstand heat, through stronger infrastructure, more resilient crops, and efforts to ease the pressure on health systems and water supplies.

“Countries, cities, and sectors need comprehensive, tailored Heat Action Plans, based on the best science and data,” Guterres said.

Lastly, the UN chief urged stepped-up action to “fight the disease”, by phasing out fossil fuels “fast and fairly” including no new coal projects, with the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5C – a goal nearly 200 governments signed up to in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“I must call out the flood of fossil fuel expansion we are seeing in some of the world’s wealthiest countries,” he emphasised. “In signing such a surge of new oil and gas licenses, they are signing away our future.”

The United States, Canada, Australia, Norway and the UK have issued two-thirds of the global number of oil and gas licences since 2020, according to research published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development this week.

‘Still time to act’

Commenting on the UN’s call to action, Alan Dangour, director of climate and health at Wellcome, a UK-based science foundation, noted that people working outside in physical jobs and those who cannot afford to adapt to rising heat are particularly exposed – but the effects are far broader.

“The levels of heat we now routinely see around the world put every part of society under extreme pressure, directly harming our health while also affecting food and water security and much of our vital infrastructures,” he said in a statement.

Speaking to journalists on Thursday, scientists convened by Wellcome said there are positive measures that can be taken to combat the problem of extreme heat, which can also bring wider social benefits.

UAE’s ALTÉRRA invests in fund backing fossil gas despite “climate solutions” pledge

For example, they explained that using community facilities as cooling centres can offer older people a place to chat or play cards, tackling social isolation and heat stress at the same time. Or adding shades with solar panels to market stalls can help women traders keep working on hot days while also providing free electricity for their businesses.

“There is still time for concerted action to save lives from the impacts of climate change, but we can no longer afford to delay,” Dangour said.

A construction worker drinks water while working on a building during hot weather in Pristina, Kosovo, June 19, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS/Valdrin Xhemaj)

The UN’s call for action points out that existing tools to reduce the devastating consequences of extreme heat could be deployed with large and far-reaching effects. Guterres said the good news is that “there are solutions… that we can save lives and limit its impact”.

For example, a global scale-up of heat health warning systems could save more than 98,000 lives every year, according to the World Health Organization. And the rollout of occupational safety and health measures could avoid $361 billion a year in medical and other costs, the ILO has estimated.

The UN chief urged a “huge acceleration of all the dimensions of climate action” as global warming is currently outpacing efforts to fight it. That could start to change, he added, as heatwaves, impacts on public health and disasters such as Canada’s wildfires are now hitting the richest countries as well as poorer ones.

“The heat is being felt by those that have decision-making capacity – and that is my hope,” he said.

(Reporting and editing by Matteo Civillini and Megan Rowling)

The post UN chief appeals for global action to tackle deadly extreme heat appeared first on Climate Home News.

At COP29 in Baku in November, the world will come together to agree a new target for climate finance. The stakes are huge given record temperatures and heatwaves, floods and droughts wreaking havoc globally.  

Tackling climate change and its consequences – and supporting wider human development – needs urgent investment. But the international financial system is struggling to respond. Is it time now to agree a new framework for international climate and development finance? Can the G20 under Brazil’s leadership, and international leaders meeting at the United Nations in New York in September, prepare the ground for COP29?  

Almost 54 years ago, in 1970, the world came together at the UN to set a target for rich countries to support poorer countries. They promised 0.7% of national income as “official development assistance” (ODA) to improve economic outcomes and reduce poverty. At the Copenhagen climate negotiations in 2009, world leaders again came together and promised to mobilise an annual $100bn to finance climate action by 2020. They said this would be “new and additional” to development finance.  

Hurricane Beryl shows why the new UK government must ramp up climate finance

Since then, with the exception of a few Europeans, rich nations have failed to meet the 0.7% target. In 2022, ODA peaked at $211bn, or 0.37% of combined OECD national income. Almost 15% of this was used to finance refugee-related costs in OECD countries themselves. The climate commitment was met in 2022, two years late. Without ODA levels rising, the 33% of ODA classified as climate-related cannot reasonably be claimed as “additional”.   

 In practice, maintaining this distinction between climate and development finance has proved difficult. For example, is planting trees in an urban landscape a climate investment because it absorbs emissions, a health investment because it reduces street-level temperatures, or a biodiversity investment as it creates habitats for wildlife? 

 The challenge of navigating these distinctions means it is difficult to track commitments or secure meaningful accountability against promises made. And it leaves many countries juggling a false trade-off between investments for the planet and for their people.  

Trillions needed

It is absolutely clear, however, that financing for poorer countries needs to increase dramatically. Despite progress over recent decades, development needs remain significant, with major setbacks through the pandemic. The Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance estimates, presented to the G20, indicate that by 2030 $5.4 trillion a year will be needed for development, climate and nature. Of this, $1 trillion a year will be required in external financing for developing countries for climate and nature alone, of which roughly half will need to come from international public finance.  

International public finance – including new and additional aid finance from rich countries – is needed to provide concessional resources for the poorest and most indebted countries. It is needed to anchor capital increases for international financial institutions that can leverage this at least ten-fold, in part by borrowing from private capital markets. These institutions, together with other development finance institutions and strong policy environments, are key to bringing in private lenders and investors, whether by reducing risk or helping develop investment pipelines. 

The Loss and Damage Fund must not leave fragile states behind

As well as additional finance, poorer countries need money that better responds to their needs. In recent years, the relentless cycle of summits has spawned dozens of initiatives. The landscape is fragmented, with over 80 funds or instruments in the climate space alone. It has become increasingly difficult for poor countries to navigate this. There is an urgent need for a moratorium on new funds and to agree principles and coordination mechanisms for all external finance – building on the aid effectiveness principles agreed in the 2000s. 

Binding 0.7% commitment?

Taking these elements together, is it time now to drop the voluntary framework of ODA crafted in the last century to meet the problems of the last century? Can countries come together now to agree a new framework for official climate and development assistance, with a binding commitment for rich countries to finally meet the 0.7% national income promise by, say, 2030?  

Such a target, negotiated under a UN framework, would double the flow of aid finance. That funding would anchor multilateral, public and private investments that are needed to close the financing gap. A negotiated process could also bring in emerging countries like China that already provide significant finance. It could clarify definitions and shift arrangements for monitoring climate and other development spend from the OECD to the UN to improve accountability. And it could begin to consolidate the range of instruments and make them more responsive to the needs of poor countries. 

With public finances under strain around the world, many will say this is simply unaffordable. But international polling indicates that people are willing to contribute 1% of their income to fight climate change. Will politicians have the courage to engage their electorates? And at the G20, in the UN, in the lead up to Baku and beyond, will they have the vision to collaborate internationally to agree a new deal that delivers both development and climate justice? 

The post The world needs a new global deal on climate and development finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

“The level of damage is apocalyptic,” said Henrietta Elizabeth Thompson from Barbados, among the countries worst hit by the natural disaster, at the start of the four-day session in Incheon, South Korea.

The board needs to create a fund that “reflects the scale of the magnitude, of the risk, the damage and devastation faced by people across the world and the urgency required to respond to it,” she added.

But before the fund starts handing out any money in future, board members have to agree on procedural matters.

A name and a place

On the opening day, the Philippines was picked as the host of the fund’s board in a secret vote by members. The Southeast Asian nation defeated bids from seven other candidates: Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Barbados, Eswatini, Kenya and Togo. 

Selecting a host country was one of the most pressing priorities for this week’s meeting. It represented a first necessary step for the board to take up a legal personality and enter into formal agreements with the World Bank, set to host the loss and damage fund on an interim basis. 

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

While the administrative staff of the fund will be based at the World Bank, the board will carry out some of its meetings in the Philippines in the future, likely in the capital Manila. The country’s proposal scored particularly high thanks to its abundant transport options and accommodation facilities and its visa free entry for short stays for most visitors, according to a background paper. 

A man stands in a home where the roof was ripped apart, in the aftermath of Hurricane Beryl, in St. Elizabeth Parish, Jamaica, July 5, 2024. REUTERS/Maria Alejandra Cardona

The somewhat thorny issue of what to officially call the fund also landed on the table in South Korea. 

For nearly all climate talks participants, it’s simply been the “loss and damage fund” since it was adopted at COP27, but the United States have made various attempts at a rebrand. At COP28 in Dubai, for example, then U.S. climate envoy John Kerry kept referring to the “fund for climate impact response” – a more neutral label that softened the suggestion of developed countries’ historical responsibility. 

In consultations ahead of the meeting, the co-chairs of the board collected various options, from the minimalistic “the Fund” to the highly technocratic “Fund referred to in decisions 1/CP.28 and 5/CMA.5”.

Ultimately, members decided to go with “Fund for responding to Loss and Damage”, abbreviated as FLD, without spending much time debating the matter. 

Beware the ‘billions’

Divisions cropped up when the discussion turned to the process of selecting the executive director (ED). Hoping to announce the name of the executive director at COP29 this November, the board had to agree at this session on the criteria for picking the fund’s boss, including the roles and responsibilities.

Several board members from developing countries wanted the ED’s job description to mention efforts to find additional money for the fund at the scale of billions. “If you have someone running a fund of 100 million, this is totally different from 10 billion, 55 billion, or 100 billion,” said Egypt’s Mohamed Nasr, “the scale of this fund is not confined to where it is”.

Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation

Countries have pledged around $700 million to the fund so far, with Italy, Germany, France and the United Arab Emirates among the biggest contributors. The United States has pledged only $17.5 million. South Korea pledged $7 million at this week’s meeting. The residual costs from loss and damage is projected to reach a total of $290 billion to $580 billion by 2030, according to a 2018 study.

But some developed country board members, including the US, rejected the proposal of including a reference to “billions”, according to observers.

“It is clear that developed nations…remain non-committal about scaling financial mobilisation,” said Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, who attended the meeting. “The initial commitments of a few hundred million dollars are merely a drop in the ocean compared to the real and escalating costs of climate change that developing countries endure,” he added.

Eventually, board members found a compromise wording. The ED will be asked to lead efforts to grow the fund’s resources “towards contributing to a response at scale to respond to climate-induced loss and damage”.

Global goal of tripling renewables by 2030 still out of reach, says IRENA

The recruitment process will now go underway with the goal of putting a shortlist of candidates in front of the board by the next meeting scheduled for September 18-20 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Legal agreements

Between now and then, there will be little time for a summer break.

After approving last June the conditions of hosting the fund, the World Bank now has until August 12 to share with board members the draft text of the agreements detailing how that will work in practice. It will include things like provisions to handle the money and give access to recipients and the rules governing the relationship between the board and the World Bank.

Developing countries and civil society groups are eager to see guarantees that communities in hard-hit countries will be able to access funds directly without going through various intermediary agencies.

“Agreeing and certifying these agreements will be the most important decision at the next board meeting”, said Liane Schalatek, associate director of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Washington who attended the board meeting. “The World Bank has shared an outline of what they will include, but we are talking about legal agreements so the devil is in the detail”.

The post In Hurricane Beryl’s shadow, loss and damage fund makes progress on set-up appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the COP28 climate summit in Dubai in 2023, nearly 200 countries committed to tripling global renewable energy capacity – measured as the maximum generating capacity of sources like wind, solar and hydro – by 2030, in an effort to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

According to figures published on Thursday by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), renewables are the fastest-growing source of power worldwide, with new global renewable capacity in 2023 representing a record 14% increase from 2022.

But IRENA’s analysis found that even if renewables continue to be deployed at the current rate over the next seven years, the world will fall 13.5% short of the target to triple renewables to 11.2 terawatts.

A higher annual growth rate of at least 16.4% is required to reach the 2030 goal, IRENA said.

Renewable electricity generation by energy source

Chart courtesy of IRENA

IRENA Director-General Francesco La Camera warned against complacency. “Renewables must grow at higher speed and scale,” he said in a statement, calling for concrete policy action and a massive mobilisation of finance.

The United Arab Emirates’ COP28 President Sultan Al-Jaber called the report “a wake-up call for the entire world” and urged countries to add strong national energy targets to their updated national climate action plans (NDCs) due by early next year.

Geographical disparities

Bruce Douglas, CEO of the Global Renewables Alliance, a coalition of private-sector organisations working on renewable technologies, highlighted imbalances in the global picture of record renewables deployment.

“We shouldn’t be celebrating,” he said. “This growth is nowhere near enough and it’s not in the right places.

Africa saw only incremental growth of 3.5% in new renewables capacity last year compared with around 9% growth in Asia and North America, and 12% growth in South America.

And despite those higher increases in Asia and South America, data released last month by international policy group REN21 shows that less than 18% of renewables capacity added in 2023 was in Asia (excluding China), South America, Africa and the Middle East, despite these regions collectively representing nearly two-thirds of the global population.

A simmering conflict over one of Latin America’s biggest wind hubs confronts Mexico’s next president

Slow growth in Africa is failing to live up to the huge potential for renewables on the continent, whose leaders last year pledged to scale up renewables more than five-fold by 2030, to 300 gigawatts.

“The justice piece is huge and too often overlooked,” Douglas said, adding that finance is “by far” the biggest challenge to getting renewables off the ground in the Global South.

Africa, for example, has received less than 2% of global investments in renewable energy over the past twenty years, according to IRENA.

“That’s not acceptable in terms of an equitable transition,” Douglas said, noting that when countries miss out on renewables financing, they are also missing out on the development benefits, jobs creation and improved access to affordable energy that clean energy can bring.

Finance not flowing

The scarcity of financing for renewables in developing countries is in large part due to investors being put off by the high borrowing costs and risk profiles of many such markets, Douglas said.

William Brent, chief marketing officer at Husk Power Systems, which installs and runs solar micro-grids in rural communities in Nigeria and Tanzania, explained: “Most sources of big capital in the West seem largely uninterested in Africa.”

“Despite being home to some of the fastest growing economies in the world, Africa is perceived as having a much higher risk profile and returns that cannot match the Americas, Asia or Europe,” Brent said.

New South African government fuels optimism for faster energy transition

Sonia Dunlop, CEO of the Global Solar Council, a body that represents the solar industry, told Climate Home that financial incentives provided by the public sector could help de-risk renewables projects for private investors.

“We need to get MDBs (multilateral development banks) leaning into big renewables projects and taking on some of the risk, which can then attract private finance,” she said, adding that governments in all countries must also play their part in creating policy environments that support and incentivise investment.

Grids and permitting barriers

Grids and permitting for renewables projects also pose major practical challenges, particularly in developed countries.

According to REN21, the potential renewable capacity that is ‘stuck’ waiting to be connected to grids around the world is equivalent to three times the amount of wind and solar power installed in 2023.

For Dunlop, the solution to grid congestion is more storage – batteries for short-term storage and other technologies for longer-term storage, such as storing electricity as heat or pumping water uphill that can then be released to produce hydroelectricity.

Beyond lithium: how a Swedish battery company wants to power Europe’s green transition with salt

Complex planning processes can also mean it takes longer to get planning permission for projects, such as wind farms, than it does to build them – if they even get approval at all.

For Douglas, something as simple as hiring more staff to process project applications in grid and planning authorities could begin to unlock thousands of gigawatts of renewable power.

Energy efficiency overlooked

Although renewables are growing faster than any other energy source, companies and governments are boosting investments in fossil fuels at the same time.

The use of fossil fuels for electricity generation continues to grow, while renewables only provide 6.3% of the energy required for heat, which is mainly used in buildings and industrial operations.

Electricity generation by energy source

Chart courtesy of IRENA

“We are not moving fast enough to fully meet the staggering rise in energy demand, let alone replace existing fossil fuels,” said REN21 Executive Director Rana Adib in a statement on the group’s recent statistics.

Another – neglected – solution is energy efficiency, experts said. The Global Renewables Alliance is running a ‘double down, triple up’ campaign, which calls on countries not only to triple renewables by 2030, but also to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency, to reduce emissions and help stem energy demand – another goal countries signed up to at COP28.

“We absolutely need that doubling of energy efficiency as well,” said Dunlop. “That isn’t discussed enough.”

(Reporting by Daisy Clague; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Global goal of tripling renewables by 2030 still out of reach, says IRENA  appeared first on Climate Home News.

European investors hold shares worth at least $65 million in major coal firms across China, India, the United States, Indonesia and South Africa within funds designated as “promoting environmental and social” goals under EU rules, an analysis by Climate Home and media partners found.

Taken together, these companies emit around 1,393 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere every year, putting them among the world’s top five polluters if they were a country.

The investments are owned by major financial firms including BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Fideuram, a subsidiary of Italy’s largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo. Most firms analysed are signatories of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), whose members pledge to align their portfolios with climate-friendly investment.

The asset managers told Climate Home their coal holdings do not contradict EU green policies or the 2015 Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.

At the COP26 UN climate summit in Glasgow in 2021, countries agreed for the first time to accelerate efforts “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”. “Unabated” means power produced using coal without any technology to capture, store or use the planet-heating CO2 emitted during the process.

But rather than shrinking, global coal capacity has grown since the signing of the Glasgow Climate Pact with a fleet of new coal plants firing up their boilers, primarily in China, India and Indonesia. Coal miners in those countries have also boosted their operations to keep up with the increasing demand.

European leaders have heavily opposed this, with EU president Ursula von der Leyen saying the bloc is “very worried” about coal expansion in China.

“Light green” funds

The investments analysed by Climate Home have been made by funds classified under Article 8 of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), which the European Commission hoped would discourage greenwashing and promote sustainable investments when it was introduced in 2021.

Article 8 – known as ‘light green’ – refers broadly to a fund that has “environmental and social characteristics”, while the ‘dark green’ Article 9 refers more directly to sustainability.

The rules were also intended to offer members of the public more clarity on where asset managers invest their money and enable them to make an informed decision on whether they want their savings or pension pots to prop up climate-harming activities.

Workers shovel coal onto a truck at a coal yard near a coal mine in Huating, Gansu province, China. REUTERS/Thomas Peter

But a group of European financial market watchdogs warned this month the rules are having the opposite effect and called for an overhaul of the system.

“Status as ‘Article 8’ or ‘Article 9’ products have been used since the outset in marketing material as ‘quality labels’ for sustainability, consequently posing greenwashing and mis-selling risks,” they said in a joint opinion to the European Commission.

“The general public is still being misled when it comes to sustainable funds,” Lara Cuvelier, a sustainable investments campaigner at Reclaim Finance, told Climate Home. “The regulations are very weak and there is no clear criteria as to what can or cannot be included. It’s still in the hands of investors to decide that for themselves.”

Funding coal expansion

Climate Home identified investments in the biggest-polluting companies in the coal sector as part of a wider investigation led by Voxeurope, which tracked holdings by funds that disclose information under the EU’s sustainable finance directive.

These “green” funds include investments in mining companies like Coal India and China Shenhua – the respective countries’ top coal producers – and Indonesia’s Adaro Energy, as well as in giant coal power producers such as NTPC in India and China Resources Power Holdings.

All of these companies are planning large-scale expansions of their coal output, according to the influential Global Coal Exit List compiled by German NGO Urgewald.

No new coal mines, mine extensions or new unabated coal plants are needed if the world is to reach net zero emissions in the energy sector by 2050 and keep the 1.5C warming limit of the Paris Agreement “within reach”, according to projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

State-owned Coal India is the world’s largest coal producer, with fast-growing output topping 773 million tonnes in the latest financial year. It is targeting 1 billion tonnes of annual coal production by 2025-26 by opening new mines and expanding dozens of existing ones.

IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down

In its latest annual report, Coal India cited “pressure of international bodies like [the] UN to comply with [the] Paris Agreement” as one of the main threats to its business. Coal India’s share value has more than doubled over the last 12 months on the back of stronger coal demand in the country, as extreme heatwaves have fuelled the use of air-conditioning among other factors.

State-run mining and energy giant China Shenhua plans to invest over $1 billion in 2024 to expand its fleet of coal power stations and build new coal mines. “We will keep a close eye on climate change to improve the clean and efficient use of coal,” its latest annual report said.

Big investors

The funds with stakes in those coal-heavy companies are managed by Fideuram, an arm of Italy’s largest bank Intesa Sanpaolo, US-based AllianceBernstein and Mercer, a subsidiary of the world’s largest insurance broker Marsh McLennan.

Coal investments in Fideuram’s Article 8 funds – worth at least $16 million – also appear to breach the company’s own coal exclusion policy, designed to rule out holding shares in certain coal firms.

Two of its flagship “emerging markets” funds claim to promote environmental and social characteristics including “climate change prevention” and the “reduction of carbon emissions”, according to information disclosed under EU rules. To achieve their ‘green’ objectives, the funds claim to exclude any investment in companies “deriving at least 25% of their revenues” from the extraction, production and distribution of electricity connected with coal.

But Climate Home found the funds include investments in at least six major coal companies exclusively or primarily involved in coal mining or power generation.

A coal-fired power plant under construction in Shenmu, Shaanxi province, China, in November 2023. REUTERS/Ella Cao

Fideuram did not answer Climate Home’s questions about the funds’ apparent breach of their own policy. But a company spokesperson said in a written statement that “investments in sectors with high-carbon emissions do not conflict with the objectives of the SFDR, which concern the transparency of sustainability investments, nor with the Paris Agreement, which promotes a transition to a low-carbon economy”.

A spokesperson for Mercer said its Article 8 fund, which holds shares in NTPC and China Resources Power Holdings. has an exclusion policy to avoid investing in companies that generate more than 1% of their revenue from thermal coal extraction. “Based on the data provided by ISS [a provider of environmental ratings], no groups involved breach the 1% threshold, and therefore, the fund is not in violation of its SFDR commitments,” they added.

AllianceBernstein did not respond to a request for comment.

Coal-hungry steelmaking

While excluding investments in so-called thermal coal used for electricity generation, several ‘green’ funds put their money in companies producing coking coal – or metallurgical (met) coal – which is used to make steel.

Goldman Sachs’ Article 8 funds hold shares worth several million dollars in Jastrzebska Spolka Weglowa, Europe’s largest coking coal producer, and Shanxi Meijin in China. BlackRock offers exchange-traded funds (ETFs) tracking indexes that include investments in SunCoke, a leading met coal producer in the US and Brazil, Alabama-based Warrior Met and Shanxi Meijin.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Reclaim Finance’s Cuvelier said that, up until recently, the focus has been on pushing thermal coal out of investor portfolios because the alternatives to met coal in steel production were “less developed”.

“There are now increasing calls on financial institutions to cover met coal as well in their exclusion policies as alternatives exist,” she added. “It’s becoming very important because there are new projects under development that should be avoided”.

A spokesperson for BlackRock said: “As a fiduciary, we are focused on providing our clients with choice to meet their investment objectives. Our fund prospectuses and supporting material provide transparency as to the methodology and investment objectives of each fund”.

Goldman Sachs did not reply to a request for comment.

Reforms on the horizon

At the end of 2022, the European Commission began a review of the SFDR’s application with a view to updating its sustainable finance rules.

Future reforms may include changes to the ways funds are categorised. “There are persistent concerns that the current market use of the SFDR as a labelling scheme might lead to risks of greenwashing… partly because the existing concepts and definitions in the regulation were not conceived for that purpose,” the Commission said in a consultation paper released last year.

It also indicated that the existing categories under Articles 8 and 9 could either be better defined or scrapped entirely and replaced with a different system. The new Commission, yet to be formed following last month’s elections, will decide if and how to move forward with the reform process.

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

Separately, the EU’s market supervisory authority, ESMA, has recently issued guidelines to prevent funds from misusing words like “sustainability”, “ESG” – environmental, social and governance – or “Paris-aligned” in their names. A handful of the funds with coal investments analysed by Climate Home have used those labels.

Under the new guidelines, asset managers wanting to slap climate-friendly labels on their funds will have to exclude companies that derive more than a certain percentage of revenues from fossil fuels.

Climate Home produced this article with data analysis contributions from Stefano Valentino (Bertha Fellow 2024) and Giorgio Michalopoulos. This article is part of an investigation coordinated by Voxeurop and European Investigative Collaborations with the support of the Bertha Challenge fellowship.

The post EU “green” funds invest millions in expanding coal giants in China, India appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a new study quantifying how gender shapes people’s experiences of climate change, scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) found that, by 2050, higher temperatures and changing rainfall patterns could mean women globally spend up to 30% more time collecting water.

PIK guest researcher Robert Carr, the study’s lead author, explained how this results in more physical strain, psychological distress and lost time that could otherwise be spent on education, leisure or employment.

“Even when people talk about gendered climate impacts, there is very little attention on time poverty and how that affects someone’s ability to improve their life,” Carr told Climate Home.

In addition, the cost of lost working time for women affects economies, and is projected to reach tens to hundreds of millions of US dollars per country annually by 2050, the study said.

Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation?

Carr noted that the data underpinning PIK’s study only recently became available and is a valuable tool for connecting women’s welfare issues to climate impacts, with more such analysis expected as new datasets emerge.

“But more still needs to be done to act on, and implement, research findings like ours at the local and national levels,” he added.

For that to happen, research like PIK’s has to resonate in government offices and negotiating rooms at UN climate talks, where gender activists see 2024 as a milestone year. Countries are expected to renew key global initiatives for advancing gender-responsive climate action and improving gender balance in official delegations at UN negotiations.

Gendered impacts of climate change

So far progress has been slow. After more than a decade of working towards those aims within the UN climate process, wilder weather and rising seas are still disproportionately affecting women and gender-diverse people, as global warming continues apace.

For example, female-headed rural households experience higher income losses due to extreme weather events like floods and droughts, through impacts on farming and other activities.

Rates of child marriage and violence against women and girls have been shown to increase during and after climate disasters. And studies have identified a positive correlation between drought-induced displacement and hysterectomies among female farm labourers in India.

At the same time, barriers like caring responsibilities, lack of funding, difficulties in obtaining visas and even sexual harassment in UN spaces persist, standing in the way of women’s equal participation in the climate negotiating rooms.

Yet, despite the mounting urgency, governments made little progress in talks on gender issues at the mid-year UN conference in Bonn this month.

Delegates arrive for a workshop on implementing the UNFCCC gender action plan and on future work to be undertaken on gender and climate change, at the Bonn Climate Conference on June 3, 2024. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth)

Advocates had hoped to leave the German city with a new, stronger version of the UN’s flagship gender initiative, known as the Lima Work Programme on Gender (LWP). Instead, discussions were tense and slow, leaving the LWP – which is supposed to be renewed by 2025 – to be finalised in November at the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan.

No rise in women negotiators

Claudia Rubio, gender working group lead for the Women and Gender Constituency at the UN, said the LWP has enabled a better understanding of “what is prohibiting women and other genders from being in [UN negotiating] spaces”.

But Mwanahamisi Singano, senior global policy lead at the Women’s Environment and Development Organisation (WEDO), reminded delegates at a workshop in Bonn that “time has not been the magic ingredient in bridging disparities between women and men in participation”, which has “stagnated or even declined when it comes to COPs”.

According to data from WEDO, women made up only 34% of COP28 government delegations overall, the same percentage as 10 years ago. Azerbaijan’s initial men-only COP29 organising committee – to which women were hastily added after an international outcry – and its line-up of negotiators at Bonn were a case in point.

The UN’s own analysis of men and women’s relative speaking times at the negotiations shows that women often – though not always – speak less, and that themes such as technology and finance see consistently lower numbers for women’s participation.

Progress has been gradual even with programmes like WEDO’s Women Delegates Fund, which has financed hundreds of women – primarily from least developed countries and small island developing states – to attend UN climate talks. Since 2012, WEDO has also run ‘Night Schools’, training women in technical language and negotiation skills.

Gender in the NDCs

Increasing the gender diversity of decision-makers in UN negotiations is important in its own right, but it does not necessarily translate into more gender-responsive climate policy, experts said. Not all women negotiators are knowledgeable about the gender-climate nexus, they noted.

But having an international framework to boost gender-sensitive climate action has also “catalysed political will” at the country level, according to Rebecca Heuvelmans, advocacy and campaigning officer at Women Engage for a Common Future (WECF).

Delegates listen to discussions on the UNFCCC Gender Action Plan at the Bonn Climate Conference on June 4, 2024. (Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth)

This is evidenced by an increase in the number of official National Gender and Climate Change Focal Points – up from 38 in 2017 when UN climate talks first adopted a Gender Action Plan, to 140 across 110 countries today. While the precise role of these focal points depends on country needs, advocates say they have been pivotal in spurring action on national gender priorities.

So far, at least 23 countries have national gender and climate change action plans, and references to gender in national climate plans submitted to the UN, known as NDCs, have increased since the earliest commitments in 2016. Around four-fifths now include gender-related information, according to a UN review of the plans.

In practice, this ranges from including gender-diverse people in the development of national climate plans to legislation that specifically addresses the intersection of climate change and gender.

For example, nine countries – including Sierra Leone and Jordan – have committed to addressing rising gender-based violence in the context of climate change. South Sudan acknowledged that heat exposure and malnutrition can increase infant and maternal mortality, while Côte d’Ivoire recognised that climate change hikes risks to pregnant women and those going through menopause.

Nonetheless, only a third of countries include access to sexual, maternal and newborn health services in their climate commitments, according to a 2023 report by the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Queen Mary University of London, showing how much work is yet to be done.

Next year, countries are due to submit updated NDCs, which campaigners see as a crucial opportunity to embed gender equality more deeply, including by involving women and girls in their planning and implementation, and collecting data disaggregated by sex and gender that can help shape policy.

Cross-cutting issue

Ahead of COP29, gender advocates are pushing for a stronger work programme with new language around intersectionality – the recognition that gender interacts with other parts of identity like race, class and Indigeneity to create overlapping systems of discrimination.

Angela Baschieri, technical lead on climate action at UNFPA, said gender commitments in the UN climate process must be more ambitious and include actionable targets for countries to address gender inequality.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Beyond the gender negotiations themselves, the Women and Gender Constituency wants to boost the integration of gender with other streams of work.

“Whether you’re talking about green hydrogen, climate finance or low-carbon transport, there is always a gender dimension,” said Sascha Gabizon, executive director of WECF International, a network of feminist groups campaigning on environmental issues.

“We have so much evidence now that climate policies just aren’t as efficient if they are not gender-transformative,” she added.

(Reporting by Daisy Clague; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UN action on gender and climate faces uphill climb as warming hurts women appeared first on Climate Home News.

Speaking on Monday at an old London coal power plant-turned-shopping centre, IEA head Fatih Birol said he would be “very happy” to see new NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) that “include no new unabated coal and also early retirements of existing coal”.

In 2021, the Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed at the COP26 UN climate summit, called on countries for the first time to accelerate efforts “towards the phase-down of unabated coal power”. “Unabated” means power produced using coal without any technology to capture, store or use the planet-heating carbon dioxide emitted during the process.

Birol, a Turkish energy analyst, said that stopping coal-plant construction was “as our North American colleagues would say, a no-brainer”. Yet, he added, while “the appetite to build new coal plants is in a dying process, some countries still do it”. He singled out China’s plans to build 50 gigawatts (GW) of new coal plants.

Shutting down existing coal plants, particularly young ones in Asia, is more difficult because the companies that have built and operate them would lose money, Birol noted. There is almost $1 trillion of capital to be recovered from existing coal plants, “so who is going to pay for this?” he asked, calling it “a key issue”.

Birol praised the Just Energy Transition Partnerships that have been set up between wealthy countries and several coal-reliant emerging economies like South Africa and Indonesia to help address the problem. He added that “there are some countries in Asia who can, in my view, afford to retire their coal plants earlier”, without mentioning which.

Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Fadillah Yusof announced at the event organised by the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which includes 60 countries, that Malaysia aims to reduce its coal-fired power plants by half by 2035 and retire all of them by 2044. It will also tackle social and economic challenges through reskilling programmes for workers and promoting renewable energy adoption, he added.

Speaking later at London’s defunct Battersea power station, Indonesia’s deputy minister for maritime affairs and investment, Rachmat Kaimuddin, explained some of the challenges his country faces in phasing out coal.

Kaimuddin (right) speaks alongside Germany’s climate envoy Jennifer Morgan (centre) in London on June 24, 2024. (Photo: Powering Past Coal Alliance)

After China and India, Indonesia has the world’s biggest pipeline of new coal power plants under construction. Kaimuddin said the state energy company would not build any more but added that cancelling existing contracts is “very, very difficult” unless the company constructing the plant wants to pull out – which none have yet.

In addition, shutting down existing power power plants is expensive, he said, because many coal power plants have “take or pay” contracts signed in the 1990s under which the government pays them whether their electricity is required or not.

Another concern is that the Southeast Asian nation does not want to lose its energy security in the switch to renewables, Kaimuddin noted. Indonesia currently mines domestically most of the coal it uses. “We’re trying to partner with other people to try to build [a] renewable supply chain in the country,” he said.

Millions of people in Indonesia work in the coal industry, he added, so a shift towards clean energy will need to include new jobs for them. “It doesn’t have to be green jobs – it has to be jobs, right?” he said.

Five things we learned from the UN’s climate mega-poll

Singapore’s climate ambassador Ravi Menon told the same event that the economies of China, India and Indonesia are growing and so are their energy needs, meaning that renewables have to be rolled out rapidly to meet demand.

Energy storage is also required to smooth intermittent supply from solar and wind, while electricity transmission infrastructure, including power lines, is needed to transport power from solar and wind farms to cities that account for a large share of consumption.

Both Kaimuddin and Menon said carbon credits should be used to offset losses for the owners of coal plants that are shut down early. “Retiring [plants] definitely will destroy financial value and… and we also need a better way to compensate them,” said Kaimuddin.

The event’s focus on coal raised concerns among some campaigners. Avantika Goswami, climate lead at the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment, told Climate Home that “singling out coal” in the NDCs, rather than including fossil fuels more broadly, “equates to giving a free pass to oil and gas-dependent countries, many of whom are wealthy”.

It could penalise many developing countries, where coal is a cheap source of fuel and energy needs are still growing, she warned.

“A global climate policy that allows unfettered use of oil and gas – which together account for 55% of fossil fuel emissions – is incomplete and inequitable,” she added.

Romain Ioualalen, global policy lead at advocacy group Oil Change International, said the IEA’s head should know that “the time to focus only on coal as a climate culprit is over”. He pointed to a subsequent agreement at COP28 last year where governments agreed to “transition away” from fossil fuels in their energy systems, without setting a deadline.

“We need a full, fast, fair, funded phase-out of all fossil fuels. Setting such a low bar for ambition is out of touch and inequitable, keeping the door wide open for major oil and gas producers,” Ioualalen added in a statement.

He called on rich countries that are “most responsible” for the climate crisis to foot the bill for a just transition. “We know they have more than enough money. It’s just going to the wrong things like fossil fuel handouts,” he said.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This story was updated after publication to include comments from Avantika Goswami at the CSE and Romain Ioualalen at Oil Change International,.

The post IEA calls for next national climate plans to target coal phase-down 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.

“Overcapacity”, a geeky economic term, has recently become the new buzzword for international discussion around China’s solar and electric vehicle industries. It is also becoming one of the thorniest issues in China’s relations with other major economies.

Notably, the word was mentioned five times in the G7 Leaders Communiqué released last week, with the G7 countries framing it collectively as a global challenge.

It is a debate that was initially sparked by US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen during her April visit to Beijing. According to her, China’s cleantech industry has excess capacities that cannot be absorbed domestically, leading to exports at depressed prices. And she stressed that this should be a concern not only for the US, but also for Europe and other emerging markets.

Days after climate talks, US slaps tariffs on Chinese EVs and solar panels

China strongly disagreed with this claim, while Yellen’s concern resonated in the EU, which has long focused on China’s market dominance. In short, there is an overcapacity of “overcapacities”, with neither side finding identical terms of reference. But as this debate is a harbinger of how climate solutions and political agendas will interweave, it’s worth parsing out some lessons for each side, on their own terms.

The US’ “overcapacity” claim as presented by Yellen is a non-starter in China.

China’s clean energy industry is an important point of pride internationally and a source of legitimacy domestically for Beijing. From that perspective countering the “overcapacity” claim is both emotionally and strategically important.

Strategically, this claim is being used to justify trade measures and tariffs against China’s clean energy products. Emotionally, the cleantech industry is a modern-day success story of China’s entrepreneurship and innovation. In China’s public discourse, the US “overcapacity” claims lands as a rejection of that success.

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

The result is a political debate in which – by design – no side can convince the other. And the lesson? This posturing is at odds with US-China climate diplomacy as we’ve known it to function in the past. Whatever objectives this approach serves, it does not include closer climate collaboration between the US and China, even as multilateral climate action at the UN level still requires them to take action in concert.

In China, discussion on “overcapacity” emerged from an ongoing conversation about how to manage investment hype. And the answer lies on the demand side.

For investors inside China at a time of challenging economics, few industries are as attractive as the clean energy industry. And business leaders have focused on the risks of hot money and breakneck expansion of clean energy manufacturing capacity for some time now, particularly in the solar industry.

This was probably the origin of “overcapacity”. But in China, this has been a familiar, almost perennial discussion of investment and industrial cycles. While the US argument equates exports to overcapacity, Chinese companies argue that it is demand that determines overcapacity, and they make investment and expansion decisions based on projections of both domestic and global demand.

Q&A: What you need to know about electric vehicles (EVs) and their batteries

That said, the size of China’s domestic market means it will remain the “base” for Chinese manufacturers. In the overseas market, the “overcapacity” claim underscores the complexity and uncertainties Chinese companies face.

For Chinese policymakers, one obvious response to the new market dynamics should be taking domestic demand to new levels. That means addressing lingering questions for China’s renewable energy future – namely, how to resolve the impact of coal. China’s power market was designed for a system dependent on coal, but it needs reform to allow wind and solar to take the central role. Injecting new political momentum to accelerate the reform will be key.

The EU has long been concerned about China’s market dominance, and the “overcapacity” debate is pushing it to decide its role in this trilateral trade and climate dynamic.

Even before this debate erupted, the EU had already begun, subtly, to diversify supply chains and build its own industrial strength, reducing dependence on Chinese products. Last week, the EU announced a maximum tariff of 38% on imported Chinese-made electric vehicles, concluding that Chinese EV makers are benefiting from “unfair subsidies”.

At this stage, it’s still unclear if this is the end of the EU’s low-key approach to date. Cultivating an EU-based clean industry hub without compromising the global response to climate change is a challenge, especially as the EU positions itself as a climate leader.

Entering the fray of US-China tension only makes this feat more complex, especially given uncertainties on the US end in an election year. How the EU approaches this climate and trade nexus will ultimately shape the trilateral dynamic among the world’s three largest carbon emitters in the coming years.

The Canadian city betting on recycling rare earths for the energy transition

For China, where relations with the EU and other countries are concerned, it’s worth taking a step back and looking at the hidden messages in the “overcapacity” debate. Other countries want more than just Chinese products.

Climate leadership is not a buyer-seller relationship, but one between partners who want solutions that create local jobs, develop opportunities, and enable native development of a sustainable future.

China should see its role in the global clean transition as more than a manufacturing hub. The transition requires tools, technology, finance and know-how, and China has much to offer. It is time for China to think more creatively about how to leverage its industrial advantages to provide the solutions with which the world is currently under-supplied.

The post Lessons from trade tensions targeting “overcapacity” in China’s cleantech industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

There’s no getting around it. The recently concluded climate talks in Bonn have left the goal of limiting global heating to under 1.5C in peril.  The reason: rich countries are backtracking on their financial pledges.   

The crucial deadline for next year’s new national climate plans, known as NDCs – which are the bedrock for the collective global effort to tackle climate change – are now in danger. This is because developing countries have no assurances that the climate finance they were promised, and which fund the NDCs, will be there.  

The theme of this year’s COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, is supposed to be climate finance. It is the meeting where the world is tasked with agreeing a new long-term global finance goal.  

This goal is the key ingredient to tackling climate injustice, and how we help vulnerable people adapt to the climate crisis and fund the transition to a zero-carbon energy system. However, at the mid-year talks in Bonn this month, rich countries dragged their feet, blocked progress and deliberately offered only vague signals about their intentions.  

UN climate chief warns of “steep mountain to climb” for COP29 after Bonn blame-game

They also attempted to unpick the commitment they made at COP28 in Dubai: to have an annual dialogue specifically on climate finance. They are now suggesting it cover other issues.  

Rich countries also used up valuable time arguing about who should pay the bill, trying to get some developing countries to also be included in the donor base. This was something they continued to talk about in the G7 summit communique issued this weekend. Delay and fudging on the new climate finance goal are hugely dangerous because the Bonn session was crucial to ensuring a successful COP29. 

Waiting for US election? 

COP summits take a huge amount of preparation with negotiators taking all year to lay the groundwork for the final landing zones that will be finalised this year in Baku. Leaving it all to the last minute would be disastrous and could result in a failure that derails international momentum on climate change just as Donald Trump is elected US President. 

The infuriating go-slow in Bonn seems to be because countries are waiting for the result of this election before making any finance commitments. This is folly.   

The need for a coalition of the sensible – to counter the ignorance and malice emanating from a potential Trump White House – will only be greater should the Republican candidate win.  

The victims of the climate crisis will need support, and the energy transition will need to be funded, whoever is elected as the next US president. Dragging out the process to the point where Baku might end up being a chaotic rush will only make things worse.  

COP29 host lacks influence 

The horrors of climate change continue to rage daily. Heatwaves mercilessly ravage lives, with over 100 people reported dead in India and over 50 lives claimed in Sudan during the Bonn talks. These are not just statistics; they are human lives from vulnerable countries, who once dared to hope for a better tomorrow.  

The dark clouds forming over Baku are compounded by the fact that the Azeri presidency for COP29 is inexperienced, with few diplomatic allies and lacking in geopolitical or economic weight to knock heads together as needed. The lack of a strong host in 2024 means we need to see leadership from other quarters. 

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Those other would-be leaders must ensure that the negotiators see the coming dangers ahead and work to catch up and avoid them. The crucial opportunities for this are the UN General Assembly summit in September and the pre-COP meeting in Baku. It’s vital that much clearer and more ambitious negotiations take place so that ministers have a streamlined process when they get to Baku in November.   

Without that, we risk getting an underwhelming finance goal or even a failed COP. That would imperil millions of people who need climate finance, as well as taking the wind out of the sails of the NDCs from developing countries, which are due to be published next year.  How can these poorer countries be expected to slay the climate dragon with paper swords, having gotten zero assurances on the long-term finance they need?  

If countries can set a clear and unambiguous path for future finance in Baku, then the world will be set up for a hope-filled and ambitious round of climate action plans next year. This is the best way to protect the world from the volatility of the US election. The work to achieve that starts now.  

The post New finance goal needed to protect climate momentum from a Trump win  appeared first on Climate Home News.

In a letter to German foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, seen by Climate Home but not made public, several coalitions of climate activists say that visa barriers exclude many participants from the Global South from the “climate negotiations that will determine the future of their countries and communities”.

Ugandan campaigner Hamira Kobusingye from Fridays for Future Africa, one of those behind the letter, told Climate Home: “This is an example of systemic and climate racism, as most of the affected delegations were primarily from Africa and Asia. This issue is rooted in the lingering effects of colonialism.”

Government negotiators also sounded the alarm, collectively agreeing in formal conclusions at the talks that they “noted with concern the difficulties experienced by some delegates in obtaining visas to enable them to attend sessions” in Bonn and urging “timely issuance of visas”.

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Delegates from Europe and most of the Americas do not need visas for short stays in Germany while those from Africa and most of Asia do.

The German Federal Foreign Office told Climate Home it was “important” to them that all accredited UN conference participants were able to attend.

A spokesperson said they were “in close contact with the UNFCCC Secretariat months before the conference, including on the visa issue, and sensitised the missions abroad at an early stage to the upcoming conference and the potential increase in demand for visas”.

They added that UN accreditation for the Bonn talks “cannot replace the actual examination of the visa application” and there are legal requirements for getting a visa for the EU’s Schengen zone of free movement.

Climate Home has seen seven letters issued by the German government denying visas to African campaigners and negotiators. One other rejection letter was issued on Germany’s behalf by another European Union government, as some EU countries share responsibility for issuing visas in certain nations.

The letters say that the visas were not issued because the delegates had not proved they had the funds to cover their stay or that they planned to leave before their visa expired or that the information or documents provided were not reliable.

Not welcome?

The organisers of the letter to the German government said they have found seven other cases where delegates only had their visas approved after the start of the two weeks of talks, meaning many had to rebook flights.

Bonn makes only lukewarm progress to tackle a red-hot climate crisis

Others reported being unable to get an appointment with visa officials of the German embassy in their country.

One delegate from an African country, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home that they went to the German consulate three times before they received information on how to get a visa.

They were told they weren’t going to get a visa appointment in time and only received one after getting contacts in their own government to help. “Not everyone has those advantages though, so I was pretty lucky”, the delegate said.

Proscovier Nnanyonjo Vikman from Climate Action Network Uganda said she only received her visa five days after the start of the talks and had to change her flight. She said many delegates feel “they are being harassed to enter a country that obviously doesn’t like them”.

No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition

As well as limiting access, the visa issues delayed the talks. In the opening session, the Russian government blocked the adoption of the agenda because, they said, several of their negotiators had not received visas. They relented after receiving assurances the visas would be granted quickly.

The German government spokesperson told Climate Home that the foreign office liaises closely with the UNFCCC to find solutions for “queries or discrepancies” including “for visa applications submitted too late during the conference”.

Call to move mid-year talks

Similar issues have plagued previous European climate summits. In 2022, two campaigners from Sierra Leone were left stranded in Nigeria after the Swedish government sent their passports to be processed in Kenya as they applied, unsuccessfully, for visas to attend the Stockholm+50 environment summit.

The UN talks are held in Bonn every June as it is the home of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose secretariat organises the meeting and is permanently based in a riverside tower a short walk from the conference centre.

The mid-year conference is supposed to help negotiators discuss issues in advance of the COP climate summit, a more high-profile event held every November, and to share experiences on how to tackle climate change.

Vikman, who went to Bonn to promote methods of adapting farming to the effects of climate change, said that the talks should be moved from Germany to a place everyone can access.

“We don’t need to die coming to Bonn – let’s move, she said.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

Kobusingye echoed her call. “It is crucial to remember that the role of the UN is to unite nations. If Global North countries cannot facilitate this process, Germany and the UN should consider moving the conference to a more receptive country that is visa-free for delegates from the Global South,” she said.

She contrasted the German government’s hosting with the UAE’s arrangements for COP28 last November and December when, she said, “every accredited delegate received their visa promptly, demonstrating that it is possible to accommodate all participants efficiently”.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

This story was updated on June 14 to add comment from the German government received after publication.

The post Visa chaos for developing-country delegates mars Bonn climate talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

In the closing session of the two-week talks on Thursday evening, many countries expressed their disappointment and frustration at the lack of any outcome on the Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme (MWP), noting the urgency of stepping up efforts to curb greenhouse gas pollution this decade.

The co-chairs of the talks said those discussions had not reached any conclusion and would need to resume at the annual climate summit in Azerbaijan in November, unleashing a stream of disgruntled interventions from both developed and developing countries.

Samoa’s lead negotiator Anne Rasmussen, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), emphasised that “we really can’t afford these failures”. “We have failed to show the world that we are responding with the purpose and urgency required to limit warming to 1.5 degrees,” she said.

Anne Rasmussen of Samoa, speaking on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

Governments, from Latin America to Africa and Europe, lamented the lack of progress on the MWP because of its central role in keeping warming to the 1.5C temperature ceiling enshrined in the Paris Agreement.

Current policies to cut emissions are forecast to lead to warming of 2.7C, even as the world is already struggling with worsening floods, droughts, heatwaves and rising sea levels at global average temperatures around 1.3C higher than pre-industrial times.

Mitigation a taboo topic?

Despite the clear need to act fast, a deep sense of mistrust seeped into talks on the MWP in Bonn, with negotiators disagreeing fundamentally over its direction, according to sources in the room.

Developed countries and some developing ones said that the Like-Minded Group of Developing Countries (LMDCs), led primarily by Saudi Arabia and China, as well as some members of the African Group, had refused to engage constructively in the discussions.

“The reason is that they fear this would put pressure on them to keep moving away from fossil fuels,” an EU delegate told Climate Home.

Bonn bulletin: Fossil fuel transition left homeless

Bolivia’s Diego Pacheco, speaking on behalf of the LMDCs, rejected that view in the final plenary session, while describing the atmosphere in the MWP talks as “strange and shocking”. He also accused developed countries of trying to bury data showing their emissions will rise rather than fall over the course of this decade.

The EU and Switzerland said it was incomprehensible that a body charged with cutting greenhouse gas emissions had not even been allowed to discuss them.

“Mitigation must not be taboo as a topic,” said Switzerland’s negotiator, adding that otherwise the outcome and credibility of the COP29 summit would be at risk.

Rows over process

Before MWP negotiations broke down in Bonn, its co-facilitators – Kay Harrison of New Zealand and Carlos Fuller of Belize – had made a last-ditch attempt to rescue some semblance of progress.

They produced draft conclusions calling for new inputs ahead of COP29 and an informal note summarising the diverging views aired during the fraught exchanges. For many delegates, the adoption of those documents would have provided a springboard for more meaningful discussions in Baku.

But the LMDC and Arab groups refused to consider this, arguing that the co-facilitators had no mandate to produce them and calling their legitimacy into question – a claim rebutted by the UN climate secretariat, according to observers. Frantic efforts to find common ground ultimately came to nothing.

A session of the Mitigation Work Programme in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

Fernanda de Carvalho, climate and energy policy head for green group WWF, said the MWP discussions must advance if the world is to collectively reduce emissions by 43% by 2030 and 60% by 2035 from 2019 levels, as scientists say is needed.

The MWP should be focused on supporting countries to deliver stronger national climate action plans (NDCs) – due by early next year – that set targets through to 2035, she said.

“Instead, we saw [government] Parties diverging way more than converging on hard discussions that never made it beyond process,” she added.

‘Collective amnesia’

Some developing countries, including the Africa Group, pushed back against what they saw as efforts by rich nations to force them to make bigger cuts in emissions while ducking their own responsibilities to move first and provide more finance to help poorer countries adopt clean energy.

Brazil – which will host the COP30 summit in 2025 – said the MWP was the main channel for the talks to be able to find solutions to put into practice the agreement struck at COP28 to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a fair way.

But to enable that, “we have to create a safe environment of trust that will leverage it as a cooperative laboratory”, he said, instead of the “courthouse” it has become “where we accuse and judge each other”.

Observers in Bonn pointed to the absence of discussions on implementing the COP28 deal on fossil fuels, which was hailed last December as “historic”.

“It seems like we have collective amnesia,” veteran watcher Alden Meyer, a senior associate at think-tank E3G, told journalists. “We’ve forgotten that we made that agreement. It’s taboo to talk about it in these halls.”

‘Detour on the road to Baku’

After the exchange of views, UN Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell noted that the Bonn talks had taken “modest steps forward” on issues like the global goal on adaptation, increased transparency of climate action and fixing the rules for a new global carbon market.

“But we took a detour on the road to Baku. Too many issues were left unresolved. Too many items are still on the table,” he added.

The closing plenary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference. Photo: Lucia Vasquez / UNFCCC

Another key area where the talks failed to make much progress was on producing clear options for ministers to negotiate a new post-2025 climate finance goal, as developed countries refused to discuss dollar amounts as demanded by the Africa and Arab groups, among others.

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Developing nations also complained about this in the final session, while others expressed their concern that a separate track of the negotiations on scientific research had failed to address the topic in a rigorous enough manner.

In his closing speech, Stiell reminded countries that “we must uphold the science”, and urged them to accelerate their efforts to find common ground on key issues well ahead of COP29.

The next opportunities to move forward on the new finance goal – expected as the main outcome from the Baku summit – will be a “retreat” of heads of delegations in July followed by a technical meeting in October, including a high-level ministerial dialogue on the issue.

But several observers told Climate Home that highly contentious issues – such as the size of the funding pot and the list of donors – are beyond the remit of negotiators and are unlikely to be resolved until the political heavyweights, including ministers, take them up in Azerbaijan in November.

Rising costs of climate crisis

“Business-as-usual is a recipe for failure, on climate finance, and on many other fronts, in humanity’s climate fight,” Stiell said. “We can’t keep pushing this year’s issues off into the next year. The costs of the climate crisis – for every nation’s people and economy – are only getting worse.”

Mohamed Adow, director of Kenya-based energy and climate think-tank Power Shift Africa, warned that “multiple factors are setting us up for a terrible shock at COP29″, saying this “ticking disaster threatens to undermine” the NDCs and in turn the 1.5C warming limit.

North Africa’s disappearing nomads: Why my community needs climate finance

In comments posted on X, formerly Twitter, Adow called for justice for those dying from the impacts of climate change such as extreme heat in India and Sudan in recent days, arguing that climate finance remains “a vital part in securing a safe and secure future for us all”.

But, he said, Bonn did not deliver a beacon of hope for vulnerable people. “Developing countries are expected to slay the climate dragon with invisible swords, having gotten zero assurances on the long-term finance they need,” he added.

(Reporting by Megan Rowling and Matteo Civillini, editing by Joe Lo)

The post UN climate chief warns of “steep mountain to climb” for COP29 after Bonn blame-game appeared first on Climate Home News.

Thousands of country representatives have spent the last two weeks in Germany at the UN Bonn Climate Conference, marking the mid-year point to the biggest climate summit of the year: COP29. 

But despite being a core milestone each year for global climate discussions, there is troublingly little to show for it. And with less than six months before COP29 – and after years of negotiations – there has been a shameful lack of commitment on delivering for those on the frontline of the climate crisis.   

Climate finance and adaptation play imperative roles in ensuring communities are able to thrive in the face of unpredictable and unforgiving weather patterns. And while both topics have been heavy on the Bonn agenda, finance negotiations so far have failed to really consider those living with climate uncertainty right now. 

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

WaterAid has been on the ground at the Bonn talks, calling for robust water, sanitation and hygiene indicators to flow directly through key climate adaptation frameworks, especially the Global Goal on Adaptation and the Loss and Damage Fund – both of which will change the course of the future for those living on the frontlines of the climate crisis. 

Support lacking for those on the frontline

Yet countries at Bonn have hit a roadblock on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), with discussions struggling to go beyond a shared acknowledgement of the value of including the support of experts to progress on areas of concern. Progress on GGA targets remains stagnant as parties grapple over country-specific concerns instead of coming to a collective outcome, with less than two days left of the conference. 

Meanwhile, the most recent talks on the Loss and Damage Fund failed to consider the urgency of the escalating climate crisis at hand and the scale of financing needed to ensure frontline nations can recover and rebuild from impacts of climate change. 

North Africa’s disappearing nomads: Why my community needs climate finance

The new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) – a new and larger target that is expected to replace the current $100bn climate finance goal – is also high on the Bonn agenda. Many core elements of this new climate fund goal are yet to be agreed.

WaterAid is calling for the NCQG to have sub-goals for adaptation and loss and damage, as well as for the finance pot to have a direct channel to vulnerable communities so they can be involved in ensuring the funds go to where the support is most needed.  

Too much or too little water

Whilst conversations at Bonn have been lukewarm, the climate crisis has remained red hot. Right now, countries around the world are watching it unfold in real time. From flooding and cyclones to drought and deadly heatwaves, communities are dealing with the terrifying reality of living with too much or too little water.  

Southern Asia is being exposed in particular to a dangerous and chaotic cocktail of unpredictable weather, making life unbearable for those on the climate frontline. 

In late May, Cyclone Remal hit coastal parts of southern Bangladesh with gale speeds of up to 110km/h causing devastation across the country for 8.4 million people, leaving many without power, damaging crops and making tube wells and latrines unusable.  

Meanwhile, record temperatures were recorded in Bangladesh through April and May where temperatures soared above 43 degrees Celsius, scorching 80% of the country and leaving thousands without power. 

At the same time, Pakistan witnessed its wettest April since 1961, with the south-western province of Punjab experiencing a staggering 437 percent more rainfall than usual, fuelling the malnourishment of 1.5 million children and damaging 3,500 homes.  

Water infrastructure key to adaptation

Water, sanitation and hygiene equip communities like those across South Asia with the ability to adapt to climate change, protecting livelihoods and farms. These basic essentials ensure people are not subject to the spread of waterborne diseases while preventing families from being forced to migrate due to sea level rises.  

From flood defences to drought resistance, water also acts as a guiding light as to where donors should direct climate finance, ensuring long-term support reaches the people who need it most. Investment in water-related infrastructure in low and middle-income countries is expected to deliver at least $500 billion a year in economic value, protecting countless lives and boosting economic prosperity. 

Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers

Now is the time for global leaders to put pen to paper and set plans in motion to ensure that we see real progress on how we achieve the GGA targets at the grassroots and that the necessary level of climate funding reaches those who need it most, without further delay.  

This truly is a matter of life and death – and prioritising action on water, sanitation and hygiene across global adaptation goals may be our only hope to prevent climate change from washing away people’s futures.  

The post Bonn makes only lukewarm progress to tackle a red-hot climate crisis appeared first on Climate Home News.

As discussions wrapped up on Tuesday, representatives of countries on both sides expressed disappointment with the process that is intended to result in an agreement on a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) at COP29 in Baku in November.

They will leave the German city with a 35-page informal “input paper” stuffed with wildly divergent views and repeatedly described as “unbalanced” by negotiators during the final session of the talks.

“It is time we get down to serious business,” said a negotiator from Barbados, pleading with colleagues to accelerate discussions before “more and more SIDS [small island developing states] and LDCs [least-developed countries] disappear from this gathering because we disappear from this planet”.

Show us the money

For most developing countries, the sticking point is the lack of negotiations on the size of the new goal – known as the “quantum” in technical language. Governments have already agreed that the new target should be set “from a floor of $100 billion per year” – the existing commitment – and should take into account “the needs and priorities of developing countries”.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

The Arab and the African groups landed their proposals for a new dollar amount on the table in Bonn – between $1.1 trillion and $1.3 trillion a year for the five years from 2025. Meanwhile, they accused rich states of failing to do the same and refusing to talk about numbers.

“We haven’t heard anything from them on their vision for the quantum,” said Egypt’s negotiator. “Every time there’s been [one] excuse or another why we couldn’t discuss quantum,” reiterated Saudi Arabia’s delegate.

Egypt’s negotiator Mohamed Nasr (middle) speaking with other delegates in Bonn. Photo: IISD/ENB – Kiara Worth

China echoed the same sentiment, but went further in its tirade against some developed countries. “We have been dealing with [a] few insincere and self-serving nations that have no intention of honoring international treaties,” the country’s negotiator said, referring to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

“We have no intention to make your number look good or be part of your responsibility as we are doing all we can to save the world,” he added, hinting at rich countries’ long-standing attempts to broaden the list of finance contributors to developing countries that are wealthier and more polluting.

‘A long way to go’

Developed countries accused their counterparts of entrenching their established positions instead of looking for areas of common ground.

Australia’s representative said the current document – which is not a negotiating text – shows “how much we disagree”. She added that there won’t be an agreement in Baku “if we engage in a game of striking out each other’s texts […] or a tug-of war”.

She expressed her government’s view that a numerical dollar target is “the star on the top of the Christmas tree” and should only be decided once the structure of the goal has been settled.

The UK’s negotiator noted that “we have a long way to go”, as “we are not in a process that will help us get to a final text”.

A delegate from the United States called for a “step change” in the process. “I feel most of what we’ve been doing is repeating views and not going into details on what folks mean,” he added.

No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition

Following the comments from developed nations, Saudi Arabia’s negotiator took to the floor again for the Arab Group. “I have to defend members of my group,” he said. “We are being gas-lit”.

It is now be up to the co-chairs of the talks to prepare a new informal document laying out a path forward based on the divergent views. The new paper will be sent to governments ahead of the next round of talks, which are yet to be scheduled.

“We encourage you to reach out to others using the inter-sessional period [between meetings] to discuss areas where you see fertile common ground,” said co-chair Zaheer Fakir in closing remarks. “Up until now we have not seen concrete efforts to reach out to your partners.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini and Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Bonn talks on climate finance goal end in stalemate on numbers appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Fossil fuel transition left homeless appeared first on Climate Home News.

Rich countries have a bill to pay. A study in the journal Nature says they will owe low- and middle-income countries an estimated $100 trillion-$200 trillion by 2050 since they have caused the climate crisis with their outsized emissions, while developing nations bear the brunt of the impacts. 

As negotiators gather in Bonn this week to prepare for November’s COP29 climate summit, wealthy governments have to face the music and pay their fair share of climate finance. With low-income countries struggling with rising seas and spiralling unjust debts, the stakes have never been higher. The good news? Rich countries can deliver the funds needed for climate action. What is lacking is the political will, as usual. But we can change this.

Bonn bulletin: Crunch time for climate finance

At last year’s COP negotiations, world leaders recognised for the first time that all countries must “transition away from fossil fuels” in energy systems. This year they must agree on a new climate finance goal for 2025, which will set a new benchmark for the quantity and terms of the money owed.

Year after year, wealthy countries have failed to pay up. While transitioning away from fossil fuels is technically possible and relatively low-cost, the failure to finance transformative climate solutions like 100% renewable-ready grids, energy access, and programs to support workers and community transitions is one of the key remaining obstacles to tackling the climate crisis. Meanwhile, the lack of funding to adapt and respond to climate impacts means fires, droughts and floods are already bringing devastating consequences.

As UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell has said, “A quantum leap this year in climate finance is both essential and entirely achievable.” But, as negotiations have begun to establish a new global climate finance target, wealthy countries are once again trying to shirk their responsibilities.

Loans and ‘private-sector first’

They have come to the table with only tiny amounts of money. Worse, they argue it should be delivered mostly as loans, investments and guarantees – which they profit from, while climate vulnerable ‘recipient’ countries rack up debt. The US, Canada, UK and their peers claim that there is not enough public money to do anything else. Yet we know they can come up with enormous sums, like for COVID stimulus plans and for bailing out the banks.

Wealthy countries say the private sector can cover most of the costs instead. This ‘private sector first’ approach is particularly emphasized for energy finance. The idea is that all that is needed is a bit of public finance to ‘de-risk’ energy investments and attract much greater sums of private finance.

But as a former World Bank Director has argued, this approach has consistently delivered far less money than promised and “has injustice and inequality built in,” while reducing the role of government action for creating the right market conditions to deliver profits to investors. We need much more public funding to be delivered as grants for a fair energy transition.

Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate

Rather than relying on the private sector, rich countries can afford the grants and highly concessional finance required for a fast, fair and full phase-out of fossil fuels, which societies and communities want. There is no shortage of public money available to fund climate action at home and abroad. Rather, a lot of it is currently going to the wrong things, like dirty fossil fuels, wars and the super-rich.

The lack of progress is also a symptom of a larger global financial system where a handful of Global North governments and corporations have near-full control. This unjust architecture results in a net $2 trillion a year outflow from low-income countries to high-income countries, historic levels of inequality and food insecurity, and record profits for oil and gas companies.

Make polluters pay

To raise the funds, wealthy governments can start by cutting off the flow of public money to fossil fuels and making polluters pay. The science is clear that there is no room for any new investments in oil, gas or coal infrastructure if we want to secure a liveable planet. And yet governments continue to pour more fuel on the fire, using public money to fund continued fossil fuel expansion to the tune of $1.7 trillion in 2022. 

There is already momentum to stop a particularly influential form of fossil fuel support. At the COP26 global climate conference in Glasgow, 41 countries and institutions joined the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP). They pledged to end all direct international public finance for unabated fossil fuels by the end of 2022 and instead prioritise their international public finance for the clean energy transition.

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

With the passing of the end of the 2022 deadline, eight out of the sixteen CETP signatories with significant amounts of international energy finance have adopted policies that end fossil fuel support – and we see international fossil finance figures dropping by billions as a result.

Making fossil fuel companies pay for their pollution through a ‘windfall’ tax on fossil fuel companies in the richest countries could raise an estimated $900 billion by 2030. Alongside taxing windfall profits, a progressive tax on extreme wealth starting at 2% would raise $2.5 trillion to 3.6 trillion a year. Brazil currently has a proposal to tax the super-rich globally, which is gaining momentum at the G20. 

Canceling illegitimate debts in the Global South can free up even more.

The public money is there for a liveable future for all. As leaders negotiate on the next climate target, we must ensure those most responsible for the climate crisis finally pay up.

The post No shortage of public money to pay for a just energy transition appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post Bonn bulletin: Crunch time for climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

At UN talks on a new post-2025 climate finance goal in the German city of Bonn, the umbrella group for 134 developing countries said wealthy governments could raise $1.1 trillion a year, needed by poorer nations to curb emissions, adapt to climate change and deal with the damage it causes.

An unpublished position paper by the G77+China, seen by Climate Home, maintains that rich countries would “only” need to spend 0.8% of their GDP per year to raise $441 billion. That would mobilise enough private finance to reach $1.1 trillion a year, it adds.

It notes that 0.8% of GDP is much less than the 6.9% of GDP developing countries currently spend paying interest on their debt.

UN chief calls on governments to ban fossil fuel ads

The paper says developed countries can raise $441 billion “without compromising spending on other priorities entirely by adopting targeted domestic measures” such as a “financial transaction tax”, a defence company tax, a fashion tax and a “Big Tech Monopoly Tax”.

It argues that “the matter in question is not whether the resources exist, it is whether there is political will to prioritise climate change”.

Bolivian negotiator Diego Pacheco, who often speaks for the influential Like-Minded Developing Countries group, told Climate Home that rich countries were trying to pass their responsibility to provide climate finance onto the private sector and development banks that mainly offer loans.

“The [argument of a] lack of public finance is not true,” he said. “There is a lot of finance available and political will is lacking.”

He suggested that developed countries should shift military budgets towards tackling climate change or tax luxury products “because luxurious patterns of consumption are also a driver of the climate crisis”.

Innovative sources

Referring to the document in talks on the new finance goal yesterday, Saudi Arabia’s negotiator justified a tax on arms manufacturers by saying that military emissions of planet-heating gases represent 5% of global historical emissions.

“One… potential idea is to have a tax on defence companies in developed countries,” he said, suggesting it could be put forward. “We also realise that a financial transaction tax can actually generate a lot of revenue as well.”

At the COP28 climate summit last November, France and Kenya launched a taskforce to look into innovative levies that could raise money for climate action. They said they planned to examine taxes on international shipping – which has already agreed to introduce one – aviation, fossil fuels and financial transactions but did not refer to fashion, technology or defence companies.

Global brands targeted

According to the document, a financial transaction tax would raise about $240 billion a year over a decade through a 0.5% tax on trades, 0.1% on bonds and 0.005% on derivatives “only for Wall Street”.

About $57 billion a year could be raised from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top seven technology firms, it says. Those would include Amazon, Apple and Google. “The ‘Big Tech’ firms hold a global monopoly on technologies, upon which developing countries have been reliant,” the paper argues.

About $34 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the roughly 80 top fashion firms in developed countries, it says. This would hit brands like Louis Vuitton, Dior and Nike.

The G77+China group adds that the fashion sector comes behind only fossil fuels and agriculture in the size of its emissions – “however, unlike fossil fuels and agriculture, high-end brands are not critical for food and energy security”.

Around $21 billion a year could come from a 5% tax on the annual sales of the top 80 defense firms in developed countries, the paper says. This would include US firms like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing, the UK’s BAE Systems and France’s Thales.

All these measures would result in finance flows mainly from developed to developing countries, the document notes, except for the technology tax where “flows would be mixed as consumer[s] would shoulder the cost”.

Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal

Pacheco said the proposals originated within the Arab Group, before winning support from the wider G77+China group. Developed countries have yet to publicly respond to the ideas.

Under the UN climate change process, the group of developed countries defined back in 1992 have so far had the sole responsibility to provide climate finance to developing nations.

Developed-country governments are now pushing hard to change this, so that wealthier and high-emitting developing countries like Saudi Arabia would also contribute towards the new post-2025 finance goal.

This is one of the divisive issues government negotiators will wrangle over this week and next in Bonn to prepare the ground for an expected agreement on the finance goal at COP29 in Baku in November.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Developing countries suggest rich nations tax arms, fashion and tech firms for climate appeared first on Climate Home News.

Frontline communities around the world are shouldering the deleterious injustices of climate change, especially in Africa despite it emitting only around 4% of total global carbon emissions. 

A case in point is the nomadic Amazigh tribes in the southeastern reaches of Morocco. The Amazighs are the oldest known inhabitants of Northern Africa. Their ancestral lifestyle is threatened by climate change, manifest in consecutive years of drought, relentlessly eroding their rights, including access to water and education, and their heritage. 

The story is personal to me, as I am from this region, and these are my people. My father was a nomad but was forced to give up nomadic life and settle in a village due to drought in the early 1980s. 

Among our tribe, “we’ve gone from nearly 600 tents in 1961 to just a few dozen today”, my father declares. According to the national census, Morocco’s total nomadic population in 2014 stood at just 25,274, a 63% drop from 2004. 

“Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal

As pastoralists reliant on livestock, particularly sheep and goats, nomadic families depend on suitable pastures, but drought increasingly has rendered pastures and water sources barren. “This is the eighth consecutive year of drought, this situation is unprecedented,” a 91-year-old nomad told me. 

This is also a story of loss and damage to the nomads’ very culture and way of life. As someone familiar with the experience of displacement, I have witnessed how climate change strikes at the heart of our culture and identity. It’s not just about losing homes or livelihoods — it’s about losing the very essence of who we are.  

Each drought-induced exodus undermines our traditions, leaving us adrift in a world that seems less and less familiar.  

This is an existential crisis for my community. 

In search of water 

In Morocco, the frequency of droughts has increased fivefold, from one dry year in 15 between 1930-1990 to one dry year in three over the last two decades. Now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts a doubling of drought frequency in North Africa to come.  

Water is being lost, and much is lost with it. As Moha Oufane, another nomad, said to me: “Water is everything. It’s the most important thing for us. We can buy food and feed livestock with what’s left in the mountains or by going into debt, but water can’t be bought. It’s priceless.”

Water shortages are disrupting traditional pastoral routes, forcing families to give up nomadism or put themselves at risk. In the past, the year would be structured around a well-defined nomadic pattern: summer months were devoted to Agdal-to-Imilchil, while winter months were spent on the Errachidia side, with a return to Assoul (a village in Tinghir) and the surrounding area when the cold set in.  

Today, this traditional route no longer exists. Nomads go where little water remains, to preserve their livelihoods and the lives of their livestock. 

Only one new water point exists on this traditional route, a project led by the Moroccan state. “This project is extremely beneficial for us,” Moha says. “Similar projects in other nearby areas would be of immense help to us.”

Loss and damage sub-goal

Many nomads are forced to go into debt to feed their livestock, their main source of income, which worsens their situation. According to Moha, some accumulated debts of nearly 30,000 dh ($3,000) between October 2023 and January 2024”. Debt has long been used by these communities, but this was when nomads were confident of being able to pay it back after good rainfall seasons, which is no longer the case. 

Conflicts over territory and diminishing water-dependent resources, once unthinkable, now disrupt the social cohesion and hospitality for which nomadic communities are renowned. 

The plight of Morocco’s nomads illustrates the need for international support for climate-affected communities. Rich historic-emitter countries must honour their obligations to provide climate finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  

Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal

Economic costs of loss and damage in developing countries are estimated to reach $290-580bn/year by 2030. Grant finance, not debt, must be provided for communities to repair and recover. Developing countries should not have to spend a penny to cope with loss and damage they did not cause. However, despite the celebrations, the new UN Loss and Damage Fund has only received $725 million in pledges. 

We need a sub-goal for loss and damage in the New Collective Quantified Goal (“NCQG”) on climate finance, to be debated over the coming days at the mid-year UN climate negotiations in Bonn and the agreed at COP29 in Baku. It is immoral for developed countries to be blocking such a sub-goal. 

It is outrageous that nomads and frontline communities should be left to fend for themselves and see their ancestral lifestyles, identities and cultures eroded, while some wealthy nations prosper from investment in fossil fuels and find public finance for their own purposes but not for climate finance. We refuse to be collateral damage in a game of power and profit. 

The post North Africa’s disappearing nomads: Why my community needs climate finance appeared first on Climate Home News.

As this European Parliament term began, Fridays for Future school strikes, inspired by Greta Thunberg, were sweeping Europe, with young people demanding that political leaders act decisively against climate change’s mortal threat. 

Five years on, as the parliament entered its final chapter, very different protests erupted in Brussels and across Europe – this time led by farmers, who clashed with police and brought the city to gridlock. The farmers’ grievances were many, from rising energy and fertiliser costs, to cheap imports and environmental rules.  

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

Just as Fridays for Future signified growing pressure on politicians to tackle the climate and biodiversity crises, the farmers’ protests have been seen as a stark warning of the rural backlash against doing so. 

In reality, the reasons for the farmers’ anger are more diffuse.     

Climate and forests centre-stage 

In the early days of the current parliament, the school strikers’ message appeared to be getting through. Tackling climate change was  “this generation’s defining task”, the European Commission declared. Within 100 days of taking office, the new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met her manifesto promise of launching the European Green Deal. 

The following few years saw climate and forests take centre-stage in EU policymaking to an unprecedented degree: from the Climate Law, which wrote into the statutes the EU’s goal to be climate neutral by 2050, to the Nature Restoration Law (NRL), setting binding targets to bring back nature across Europe, and the EU Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR), the first legislation of its kind in the world, which aims to stop EU consumption from devastating forests around the world. 

Then came the backlash. 

Despite exit, EU seeks to save green reforms to energy investment treaty

Over the past year, vested industry interests and EU member states have tried to sabotage key pieces of the European Green Deal, including the NRL and the EUDR. 

This pushback against laws to protect the natural world is now a battleground in EU parliamentary elections, with populist, far-right and centre-right parties seeing it as fertile vote-winning territory. 

The centre-right European People’s Party, the largest group in the European Parliament, has been campaigning against key planks of the Green Deal, including the NRL, while promoting itself as the defender of rural interests. 

But the views of the rural constituencies whose votes they covet are not as simplistic or polarised as widely depicted. 

Deep listening 

At Fern, we’ve increasingly worked with people who share the same forest policy goals but are bitterly opposed to one another.

This is why we commissioned the insight firm GlobeScan to run focus groups among rural communities in four highly forested countries: Czechia, France, Germany and Poland. We wanted to find out what those whose concerns have been used to justify the backlash against green laws really think. The results contradict the prevailing narrative. 

All participants – selected with a balance of genders, occupations, political views and socio-economic statuses – felt that forests should be protected by law, and unanimously rejected the idea that such protection measures are a threat to rural economic development or an assault on property rights.

They felt deeply attached to their forests, saw them as public goods, were concerned about the state of them, and had a strong sense of responsibility and ownership towards them. They also wanted to see action to improve industrial forest management practices and mitigate climate change. 

Climate, development and nature: three urgent priorities for next UK government

While there was some sympathy for concerns around too much bureaucracy, even those who expressed this view felt forests should be protected by laws. Moreover, they saw the EU as having a primary role in providing support and incentives, and developing initiatives to fight the climate and biodiversity crises.  

Given how much EU politicians have put rural concerns at the heart of their arguments for rolling back the Green Deal – and are now using them in their election campaigns – it’s telling that their narratives on this do not resonate widely. Even foresters with right-leaning political views saw most of them as extreme and oversimplified. 

The lesson here is that the simplistic, divisive arguments that dominate the public debate over rural people and laws to protect nature do not reflect the complex reality of peoples’ lives or their attitudes. Where a divide exists between those pushing for strong laws to protect nature and the rural communities supposedly resisting them, it’s far from irreconcilable. 

Bridging any such gaps by listening and understanding each other’s perspectives is vital for all our futures. Those elected to the next EU Parliament would be wise to heed this. 

For further information, see: Rural Perspectives on Forest Protection 

The post Right-wing pushback on EU’s green laws misjudges rural views  appeared first on Climate Home News.

With climate negotiators gathered at mid-year UN talks in Bonn, Germany, to prepare for COP29, a critical question hangs in the air: how can we ensure that the money mobilized to address the climate crisis is not only sufficient in quantity, but also effective in quality? 

Negotiators have been tasked to set a new collective quantified goal, or NCQG, on climate finance, which rapidly scales the amount of money we need globally for climate action. In the face of stark needs, the NCQG must be ambitious.  

Experts estimate that by 2030, $2.4 trillion will be required annually to support the needs of developing countries alone. 

“Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal

With just five months before the goal is on the decision-making table at COP29, it is also critical that negotiators consider the issue of quality – such as the type of financing, the ways money is accessed, alignment with national priorities, the predictability of funds, and their impact. 

High-quality climate finance should not create additional burdens and has clear pathways to access for countries and communities in need. However, many developing countries have expressed concern that the current quality of finance is far from where it needs to be. 

Concessional and accessible 

An important signal of quality in climate finance is the degree of concessionality – or how favorable the terms of financing are. Concessional finance includes grants and loans with low interest rates and longer repayment periods, which are easier for recipient countries to manage.  

Concessional tools also have potential to scale action by mobilizing private finance. These ‘blended finance’ approaches can often do far more than a traditional grant or loan. For example, to build a solar plant in Uzbekistan, the World Bank utilized concessional loans to mitigate financial risk and incentivize private-sector participation. 

However, in recent years, more than 70% of public climate finance has been delivered through loans, most of which have been non-concessional. This poses a challenge as many developing countries face burgeoning debt crises, and non-concessional loans risk further indebting these vulnerable states.  

Yet, countries in debt distress like Ghana and Zambia still received 17% of their climate finance through loans in 2021. Without proper concessionality, climate finance meant to build resilience can paradoxically make things worse. 

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

Another measure of quality is the accessibility of finance. Increased climate finance must come with clear channels of access for developing countries, but bureaucratic hurdles, limited transparency, and rigid funding terms can hinder governments from accessing international funding streams.  

For example, small island states have struggled to access resources from climate funds due to capacity constraints in navigating the finance landscape. Access to private finance is also lacking as private funders perceive high risks of investing in emerging markets. If climate finance flows remain unavailable or inaccessible to developing countries, it will be impossible to meaningfully address their needs and priorities. 

Multi-layered goal 

The structure of the NCQG can incorporate elements of impact, concessionality and access. Negotiators should pursue a goal with multiple layers – setting a support target for providing public finance to developing countries, alongside an investment target for mobilizing all sources of finance globally. 

The support goal should be underpinned by concessional finance, targeting the national priorities of developing countries through grant and other non-debt financial instruments fit for purpose. These layers can foster blended approaches that scale available finance and enable greater access without creating new debt burdens. 

Lastly, for public finance to more effectively open new channels of access, we need steady reform in the broader financial system, including the multilateral development banks (MDBs). The MDBs are undertaking reforms to simplify access and increase lending capacity, and made new announcements at the World Bank’s Spring Meetings in April, which will allow public financing from MDBs to catalyze greater private finance flows and mitigate risks of debt distress. 

Pairing quantitative and qualitative elements should be at the top of the agenda in Bonn. Many countries have already called for qualitative elements to be incorporated into the goal. Now, delivering this quality – via greater concessionality, accessibility, and innovation – will be vital to ensure that climate finance can play a transformative role in addressing the complex challenges posed by climate change. 

The post Quality – not just quantity – matters in the new climate finance goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Calling climate finance the “great enabler of climate action”, Simon Stiell told negotiators at the start of the annual June session in the city of Bonn that they must come up with concrete options for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on finance.

The goal is one of the main decisions expected from the COP29 UN climate summit in November in Azerbaijan’s capital.

“We cannot afford to reach Baku with too much work to do. So please, make every hour here count,” Stiell said on Monday in his opening speech to the June 3-13 conference.

Following delays caused by an unauthorised pro-Palestinian protest and a complaint from the Russian delegation that not all its members had received visas to travel to Germany, government negotiating blocs made statements revealing sharp divisions on who should provide climate finance and how much it should be.

South African & Argentinian climate justice activists Tasneem Essop & Anabella Rosemberg were removed & de-badged after peacefully demonstrating (standing & singing) to alert to the unfolding genocide in Palestine at @UNFCCC #BonnClimateConference opening plenary. pic.twitter.com/xUWXY8dilU

— Center for International Environmental Law (@ciel_tweets) June 3, 2024

While developing countries have repeatedly called for the current $100 billion-a-year goal to be replaced with “trillions”, developed nations have yet to propose any numbers for the target.

Several developing countries said that at least the bulk of the money should come from developed-country governments, whose responsibility it has been so far under the UN climate regime.

Developed countries, in turn, said some of it should come from the private sector and global taxes on carbon-heavy goods, as well as from the public purses of wealthier, higher-polluting developing countries.

Other divides that need to be resolved by November include a common definition of climate finance, the period the new goal should be set for, how funding flows should be monitored, and what the money should be spent on.

A longstanding target to provide $100 billion annually from 2020 was met only in 2022, according to the Organisation for Economic Coopreation and Development (OECD), two years later than the deadline developed countries agreed to back in 2009.

Mexico elects a climate scientist as president – but will politics temper her green ambition?

Diego Pacheco, a negotiator from Bolivia, told the room in Bonn that the level of ambition on the new finance goal will affect developing countries’ level of ambition in their UN climate action plans – which all nations are supposed to publish by early next year. The NCQG will determine “how words translate into actions”, he said.

Billions to trillions

To date, very few governments have made precise demands on a top-line amount for the new goal – although all have agreed it will be set from a floor of $100 billion a year.

India and the Arab group of countries, led by Saudi Arabia, have said rich countries should provide at least $1 trillion a year, while other developing country governments have repeatedly pointed to needs reaching into the “trillions”.

At a press conference in Bonn, Michai Robertson, the lead finance negotiator for small island states, warned: “The cost of inaction if we don’t spend those trillions just far exceeds the seed money we’re putting in”. War and conflict “get trillions already”, he added.

He added that many developing countries have not yet specified a precise amount as they are doing modelling and waiting for a UN “needs determination report” which is due out in October, ahead of COP29.

On beaches of Gaza and Tel Aviv, two tales of one heatwave

In their speeches, neither the European Union or Canada gave any sense of how large the target should be.

Iskander Erzini Vernoit, founder of a Moroccan think-tank called the Imal Initiative, told journalists that developed countries have not been willing to enter into discussions about how much the goal should be.

Wide or narrow sources

Vernoit said the only dimension rich nations have been willing to discuss so far is “their proposal entailing money coming from sources other than themselves”.

The EU’s delegate said in Bonn that the money should come from “a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels including innovative sources while making all financial flows consistent with the Paris Agreement”.

“While we attach great importance to the public core of the new goal, public resources alone will not suffice,” the EU negotiator said.

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

“Innovative sources” refers to a variety of money-raising proposals such as taxing billionaires, shipping emissions, planes and financial transactions. A French and Kenyan-led taskforce is currently examining these options.

Developed countries, including those in the EU, have highlighted Article 2.1c of the 2015 Paris Agreement on making finance flows, including private finance, consistent with tackling climate change. They are also pushing to widen the pool of government donors.

The EU negotiator added in Bonn that “the provision and mobilisation of climate finance should be a global effort, reflecting solidarity – notably with the most vulnerable countries and communities, and capturing the evolved global circumstances and the dynamic nature of economic capabilities”.

Developed countries have argued that, since developed and developing countries were last categorised by the UN in 1992, some developing nations have grown much richer and more polluting – and should therefore contribute to climate finance not receive it. China, the Gulf nations and South Korea are among the most prominent examples.

Speaking on behalf of a negotiating group that includes the US, Japan, the UK and Australia, Canada's negotiator said the new goal must be "multi-layered and incorporate all sources of finance - public and private, domestic and international - it should draw from the efforts of a broad set of contributors that reflects economic realities and capabilities".

However, speaking on behalf of the biggest group of developing countries, Uganda stressed the responsibility lies with the traditional set of developed countries.

Speaking through a translator on behalf of the Arab Group, Saudi Arabia's negotiator said the new goal must reflect "the responsibilities of advanced countries" based on the rules of the Paris Agreement.

Brazil's negotiator said public finance should be "at the very core" of the goal, and that climate finance should be defined so there is transparency and accountability on whether it has been provided as promised.

The OECD - a club of wealthy nations that last week announced the $100-billion target had been met - "does not have multilateral legitimacy" to make such judgements, she added.

The great COP food systems illusion: UN climate talks deliver no real-world action

Referring to the OECD announcement, Bolivia's Pacheco said: "We see much exaltation in delivery of climate finance in the form of loans at market rates".

Over two-thirds of the climate finance recorded by the OECD came in the form of loans. Of the loans provided directly by governments, about one-fifth was offered at market rates, while nearly three-quarters of loans from multilateral development banks were categorised as non-concessional but still carrying better terms than commercial lenders.

Vernoit warned that developed countries were likely to get their way at the talks in Bonn unless the public - through civil society groups - raised "moral indignation about how the conversation is going".

"This is not a response to an emergency, it is not a response to any moral responsibility," he said.

(Reporting by Joe Lo, editing by Megan Rowling)

The post “Great enabler of climate action” – UN urges Bonn progress on new finance goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

But not everyone has been affected equally, as Climate Home found out when speaking to people living by the Mediterranean Sea, just an hour or two’s drive apart. The Israeli city of Tel Aviv has been largely unscathed by the ongoing war between Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, while Gaza’s urban areas have been bombed heavily, forcing most residents to flee Israeli attacks.

Climate Home spoke to two Palestinian fathers, now living in Gazan refugee camps in Rafah and Deir al-Balah, who have lost children to the recent heatwave. Both had fled their homes before their children died and are living with their surviving families in makeshift wood and nylon tents, fanning themselves with plastic food containers for ventilation.

Boys carry water bottles in Gaza on May 28, 2024. (Photo: Naaman Omar)

Meanwhile, just to the north, on the beach-side promenade of Tel Aviv, Israeli locals told Climate Home they had waited out the heatwave in air-conditioned apartments. Their main concerns were the cost of cooling, the strain it places on the country’s electric grid and drooping house plants.

Not just temperatures

Friederike Otto is one of the scientists who worked on a study issued by the World Weather Attribution group which found that climate change made the April heatwave in the Middle East five times more likely.

She told a press briefing that heatwaves are “not just about the temperatures – it’s what these temperatures mean to people”.

Asked separately about Gaza, she told Climate Home: “If you don’t have access to water, if you don’t have access to shade, if you don’t have access to medication – the extreme heat just compounds so much the challenges that these people are already facing.”

The Gaza Strip, one of two Palestinian territories, is just 25 miles long and about five miles wide. Since a bloody attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7, the Israeli military has repeatedly bombed and invaded Gaza, killing over 35,000 people.

The attacks have caused 1.9 million people, nearly 85% of the Gazan population, to flee their homes. While air conditioning, electricity and clean water have long been scarcer in Gaza than Israel, the current conflict has worsened that inequality, development agencies have said.

Greenhouse tents

Many refugees are living in nylon tents. Without walls, fans or air conditioning, they told Climate Home they are battling heat by using expensive water to shower as often as they can and stripping children – nearly half of the region’s population – to their underwear.

“It is like living in a green house, and no one can tolerate living inside.”

We are just at the beginning of summer, and the temperatures are already unbearable in #Gaza

Access to fresh water is very limited, making hot weather an even bigger health threat#CeasefireNow pic.twitter.com/6Qtln9XPD0

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) April 25, 2024

Hilmi Basal, 41, and his wife and six children left their home in northern Gaza after Israeli warnings. They fled south, buying a makeshift tent to live in the Deir al-Balah refugee camp. On April 26, Basal said, his three-year-old son fell suddenly to the ground and entered a coma. Five days later, he was pronounced dead in the local hospital.

Basal told Climate Home he “lives a difficult life” after losing his child, feeling “despair, frustration and fear of losing more children”. He said the tents are like greenhouses, so his family spend their days outside, preferably at the seashore where they can swim and shower. 

He and his wife dress their five surviving children in only their undergarments and search for water to cool down. A 20-litre bottle of drinking water costs $1.50, which Basal says “is an amount that many families suffering from extreme poverty do not have”. 

A boy sits in a bombed-out area of the Rafah refugee camp after an attack by Israeli bombers in Gaza – May 27, 2024 (Photo: Hashem Zimmo/TheNews2/Cover Imag)

Ribhi Abu Salem, 39, also lost a child to the heatwave. The three-year-old fainted suddenly while he was inside the family’s tent and died at the hospital. Doctors said the cause of the death was direct exposure to sunlight.

Until Israel’s attack, the family lived in an air-conditioned house in the Jabalia refugee camp in northern Gaza. This was built for Palestinians fleeing what they call the Nakba (meaning “catastrophe”) in 1948, when Zionist paramilitaries violently removed Palestinians from the newly-declared Israeli state.

Advised by the Israeli government to leave northern Gaza, Salem’s family fled south to the city of Rafah, where they sheltered in a tent. “Despite the scarcity of water, many tent residents resorted to buying large quantities of water to shower more than five times during the day,” Salem said.

After his family left, the Israeli government bombed their home, leaving them with nowhere to return to when the conflict ends. On May 6, Israeli forces began attacking Rafah and have since killed dozens of people sheltering there.

“It’s difficult to convey the scale of the humanitarian situation in Rafah. In every direction you look there are makeshift shelters.”@UNWateridge describes the sense of loss & fear people face in #Gaza as they look for water, food & safety.

Nowhere is safe in the #GazaStrip pic.twitter.com/OpH2YV7avk

— UNRWA (@UNRWA) April 25, 2024

For those with homes still standing, the usefulness of air conditioning and fans has been hindered by Israel’s blocking of fuel supplies to Gaza’s only power plant, leading to shortages of electricity. Solar panels continue to provide power for some, although they are also vulnerable to destruction by Israeli weapons.

AC the key

Across the border, Israelis are coping much better with the heatwave. Although the emergency services say 147 people have been treated for dehydration, fainting or heatstroke, none have been reported dead from the extreme heat.

When Climate Home visited Tel Aviv’s seaside promenade last week, beach-goers were sitting under umbrellas or stretched out on lawns listening to Spanish music blaring from a bar advertising frozen margaritas.

The beach in Tel Aviv on May 23, 2024 (Photo: Jessica Buxbaum)

Twenty-somethings Noam Sophia Samet and Tal Danon spoke to Climate Home still wet from a dip in the Mediterranean Sea. Both said they use air conditioning all the time. “It’s expensive but it’s worth it,” said Samet.

Timna Lalach, 70, said last month’s heatwave didn’t affect her, as she stayed inside her cooled apartment all day. Thirty-nine year old Anna Tarkovsky said she too stayed inside with the air conditioning on – the only problem was her plants died, she added.

Black-outs

While Gazans lack air conditioners, Israel’s main issue is that there are too many for its coal and gas-powered electricity grid to handle peaks in demand when residents all turn their cooling equipment on at the same time, 

During a heatwave last June, Israeli energy authorities imposed rolling black-outs. Last month, Samet and Danon’s electricity cut out once for a few hours while they were trying to work. 

Avner Gross, an environmental science professor at Ben Gurion University, said the Israeli government should plan better for hot days, with measures to store electricity or manage demand for it. “We need to be prepared and we are not even close,” he said.

Both Israel’s national government and Tel Aviv’s authorities want to expand vegetation cover and plant trees to provide shade. Tel Aviv is a member of the ‘cool cities’ network, which aims to tackle urban heatwaves.

Ficus trees provide shade on Dafna Street in Tel Aviv in 2017 (Photos: Avishai Teicher)

But Gaza, and the other Palestinian areas in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, are much further away from becoming more resilient to the same unbearably high temperatures.

The World Bank estimates that rebuilding the Gazan homes destroyed as of January this year will cost $13 billion. Far more have since been razed – and water, health and electrical infrastructure also needs to be restored.

The predicament of Gazans forced to endure sweltering conditions in ill-equipped tents is not an isolated problem. Across the world, climate change and war are forcing more and more people out of their homes and into makeshift camps. More than 75 million people are currently displaced inside their own countries – 50% more than five years ago.

The World Weather Attribution study notes that the recent heatwave made already precarious conditions for internally displaced people and conflict victims worse.

“With limited institutional support and options to adapt, the heat increases health risks and hardship,” the scientists wrote.

(Reporting by Taghreed Ali, Jessica Buxbaum and Joe Lo; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post On beaches of Gaza and Tel Aviv, two tales of one heatwave 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.

President Cyril Ramaphosa described the $8.5 billion “Just Energy Transition Partnership” (JETP) as a “watershed moment” – and then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called it a “game-changing partnership”.

But, as South Africa prepares to head to the polls next Wednesday in an election that could force Ramaphosa’s ruling party to share power for the first time since apartheid ended, there is still little to show for the energy transition deal on the ground.

Africa must reap the benefits of its energy transition minerals

Crispian Olver, executive director of the Presidential Climate Commission which is advising the government on the JETP, told Climate Home: “This is a bit like trying to turn a big container-ship – it’s slow to shift onto a new path, but once it’s on that new course, things will start to move faster.”  

As of last November, just $308 million of grant-funded projects under the JETP had reached the implementation phase, government data shows. Of this, just $30m was categorised as spending on the just transition in the coal-dependent Mpumalanga province.

The government has not published equivalent information on loans – which make up 97% of the donor-backed support. But those following the JETP say progress has been slow partly because South Africa’s state-owned electricity generator Eskom is reluctant to take on more debt.

In addition, South Africa’s energy ministry and the wealthy governments that are providing funding disagree on the role of gas in the country’s energy transition. The donors backing the JETP are the US, Canada, Britain, Switzerland, the European Union, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Denmark and Spain.

Coal plant closures have been delayed by South Africa’s lack of reliable electricity, which has led to rolling power black-outs known as “load-shedding”.

While problems affecting the coal sector are a key cause of unreliable electricity supplies, Eskom has said it will delay the closure of three coal-fired power plants in response to the crisis. 

South Africa’s best wind and solar resources, in the south and west, meanwhile remain under-utilised because the national power grid is already congested in those areas.

Azerbaijan pursues clean energy to export more ‘god-given’ gas to Europe

To transport the clean power, Eskom is trying to build transmission cables but progress has been slow as the utility is deeply in debt and reluctant to take on new loans through the JETP – even if those loans are offered on cheap terms.

An Eskom spokesperson said that “off-balance sheet options” – like allowing the private sector to build cables and substations – are being considered, but the details are still to be finalised. 

Electricity cables at South Africa’s Lethaba power station in 2007 (Photos: World Bank)

Yet not all government departments want a rapid transition to renewables. The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), led by pro-coal minister Gwede Mantashe, recently published an energy planning document that envisages a sharp slowdown in the roll-out of solar and wind power and instead more of a shift from coal to gas power plants.   

This has complicated things for the international partner group behind the JETP. Two people with knowledge of the negotiations told Climate Home that South Africa’s apparent reticence to switch to renewables is slowing the pace of funding flows under the deal. 

On the other hand, South Africa’s parliament recently approved a Climate Change Bill and a Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill, which seeks to create a competitive power market and end Eskom’s century-long, coal-dominated monopoly. The legislation will render the DMRE’s controversial gas-reliant energy plans less relevant, as it paves the way for more electricity to be produced by private companies.

Energy minister Gwede Mantashe (left) speaks to President Cyril Ramaphosa (right) in 2018 (Photos: South African government)

But that has done little to appease anxious workers and residents in the heart of the country’s coal belt. In particular, the town of Komati offers a warning of the electoral damage that can occur if coal-plant repurposing projects don’t go smoothly. 

Eskom’s coal-fired power station in Komati was retired from service in October 2022 after reaching its end-of-life date. It is now being converted into a solar, wind and food farm, a solar microgrid assembly factory and training facility.

Parts of it are now starting to open but for many local people, it is too little too late. “The community is currently facing a pandemic of unemployment and poverty,” said community leader Carlos Vilankulu, who is also a repurposing project liaison officer. 

Eskom says none of its workers lost their jobs when the last coal units were taken offline – many were transferred to other power stations. But local guesthouses and other small businesses in the community say they are struggling as a result of the closure. 

A man selling second-hand tyres waits for customers in Komati village, May 9, 2024 (Photo: REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko)

“Everything has come to a standstill. Many people are unemployed,” said Alta de Bruin, a guest-house owner based in Komati village. While the repurposing project has generally been well received, it “could have started a long time ago”, de Bruin told Climate Home.

The decision to close down Komati was made long before South Africa agreed to its climate finance package at COP26, but the local transformation project is intended to serve as a blueprint for other just transition initiatives in the country.  

It has been a cautionary tale, according to Olver. Community consultations on the way forward only took place years after the decision was made to shut Komati – meaning local residents and businesses were left in a state of limbo. “The next [coal power] stations will do it better,“ he said.

Besides South Africa, JETPs have also been signed with Indonesia, Vietnam and Senegal. Leo Roberts, an analyst with climate change think-tank E3G, said South Africa’s delays in closing down its coal plants are concerning.

Indonesia has also postponed coal plant closures after expressing disappointment with rich countries’ support, while Vietnam’s partnership has ground to a halt amid political turmoil.

“We mustn’t lose sight of what the JETPs need to deliver,” Roberts said. “This is ultimately about reducing emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change, dealing with the huge health pollution challenges coal causes, and supporting countries to deliver self-defined low-carbon development pathways.”

(Reporting by Nick Hedley; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post As South Africa heads to the polls, voters await stalled “just energy transition” appeared first on Climate Home News.

While scientists have long recognised that vegan and vegetarian diets are far better for the climate than typical Western meat-eating ones, governments and international bodies have often shied away from explicit calls for the public to consume fewer animal products.

Experts told Climate Home that diets are an emotive issue. Western politicians and lobbyists opposed to climate action have spread disinformation about green policies that affect food, falsely claiming that governments will limit hamburgers, tax T-bones or make citizens eat low-carbon forms of protein like insects.

Shift subsidies

The bank’s new “Recipe for a Livable Planet” report outlines a “menu of solutions” governments can take to reduce their planet-warming emissions from food production, including using more renewable energy, harvesting food from trees instead of cutting them down, and restoring forests.

It calls on high-income countries, whose diets are most polluting for the planet, to take the lead by providing finance for green measures to low and middle-income nations and by shifting subsidies away from high-emitting food sources like cattle for beef. This “would reveal their full price and help make low-emission food options cheaper in comparison”, the report says.

UN agrees carbon market safeguards to tackle green land grabs

Report author William Sutton, the bank’s lead on climate-smart agriculture, told Climate Home an example of a subsidy that is “not necessarily helpful for the environment” is providing free or cheap land for grazing livestock. While Sutton declined to single out countries, the US government, for example, allows cows to graze on public land for a knock-down price.

If subsidies for meat were reduced in line with its “true cost” to the planet, prices would be 20-60% higher, Sutton said. “Allow the price of meat to more accurately reflect its true cost and let consumers decide whether that’s what they want to consume or whether they would rather consume lower-emissions, lower-cost alternatives,” he added.

Options not prescriptions

Despite its report, the World Bank is not keen to be seen telling people what to eat or arguing for veganism. “The approach that we’ve taken is not to be prescriptive – not to tell people what they should and shouldn’t do – but to provide options on what they could do if they should so choose,” Sutton said.

The report contrasts high-emitting foods like red meat and dairy with “low-emission foods like poultry or fruits or vegetables”. While poultry meat, which is mainly chicken, is much less emissions-intensive than lamb or particularly beef, it is more polluting than plant-based proteins, as the report’s data shows.

This table from the report shows that vegan diets are the lowest emissions (Screenshot/World Bank)

Sutton said that changing to a more sustainable diet “doesn’t mean eliminating meat necessarily. It could be switching from beef or lamb to something like chicken or even pork.” But, he added, people “could also switch to soy or other types of beans… That will reduce emissions even more but we don’t think it’s useful to prescribe that.”

Greenpeace EU food campaigner Sini Eräjää agreed that promoting full vegetarianism or veganism is too “black and white”. But, she added, encouraging poultry consumption gives out the wrong message. “I know that there are different kinds of calculations between different kinds of meats,” she said, but “first and foremost we need to change to more plant-based diets”.

Paul Behrens, an environmental change professor at Leiden University, agreed, telling Climate Home that chicken farms drive zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance and pollute rivers and air, while poultry feed causes deforestation.

The World Bank still has investments in the meat and dairy sector. Last year, its International Finance Corporation arm loaned $47.3m for a company to develop a pig-rearing complex in China and invested $32.6m in a Brazilian dairy producer, despite opposition from environmentalists.

Asked about this, Sutton said the organisation had to “walk the talk” and had increased its support for adapting farming to climate change and reducing its emissions.

But, he added, the bank does support some investments in livestock “after careful consideration”, if it thinks it can improve a company’s approach by increasing efficiency, cutting emissions, and providing jobs and nutritious food to the poor.

Political hot-potato

Other international bodies have avoided criticising meat too explicitly. Former officials of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) have said their employers censored them when they tried to criticise livestock. Meanwhile scientists have accused the FAO of misusing their research to underplay the role that changing diets can play in cutting climate-heating emissions.

In 2021, scientists working with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faced pressure from Brazil and Argentina – two major beef and animal feed producers – to remove from a report a mention of plant-based diets and reduction of meat and dairy consumption as being good for the climate.

Edward Davey, an advisor to the Food and Land Use Coalition, said that national governments in particular “tend to be quite shy about talking about this issue because they fear the political repercussions of being perceived to be telling people what to eat”.

The US government has made no moves to reduce meat consumption but right-wing media outlets like Fox News have falsely claimed that “Biden’s climate requirements” will restrict Americans to “one burger per month”.

The Australian government likewise has no policies to curb meat-eating. But opposition politicians there have spread misinformation that the country signing up to a global methane pledge amounts to a “T-bone tax” and the end of the Australian barbeque.

We heard warnings about an end to the Aussie barbeque, a T-bone tax and so on if Australia joins 120 other countries in signing a pledge to reduce methane emissions.

But for rhetorical flourish – no one was ever going to outdo Barnaby Joyce.#Insiders #auspol pic.twitter.com/ZHYkbS0HJ2

— Insiders ABC (@InsidersABC) October 15, 2022

Greenpeace EU’s Eräjää said she had seen early drafts of European Commission documents that included warnings about red meat’s health impact before those warnings were stripped out of the final version. “Meat is a four-letter word,” she said.

David Powell has researched the issue for Climate Outreach, a group that specialises in communicating effectively on climate change. He said that “what we see as normal to eat is closely linked with our identities and is very personal”.

“For most people, climate arguments alone won’t help persuade them to change what they eat,” he said, adding it is better to talk about the health benefits of eating less meat and dairy in a positive way rather than shaming people.

High-income countries eat more servings of animal-sourced products than the global average

Both Sutton and Davey stressed that the debate over meat-eating is largely a wealthy country concern. People in higher-income regions eat three times as many servings of meat, seafood, eggs and dairy per day than their counterparts in South Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa.

“Many, many people in the world – typically richer people in wealthier societies but also in unequal middle-income countries – need to eat much less meat for the purpose of their health, as well as for the climate, and many of the world’s poorer people need to eat more animal  protein for their health, well-being and nutrition,” said Davey.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post World Bank tiptoes into fiery debate over meat emissions appeared first on Climate Home News.

At a meeting in the German city of Bonn last week, government negotiators and experts from around the world approved an appeals and grievance procedure for the UN’s proposed Article 6.4 carbon crediting mechanism.

Maria AlJishi, chair of the body in charge of establishing the market, said in a statement that by introducing the procedure, “we’re establishing new avenues to empower vulnerable communities and individuals, ensuring their voices are heard and their rights are upheld.”

Isa Mulder, a researcher with campaign group Carbon Market Watch, told Climate Home the agreement on policies to challenge carbon credit projects before and after they are implemented was “quite a historic moment”. “This is pretty big,” she added.

The previous UN carbon market – called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – did not have any such procedures. It, and other carbon markets, have been plagued by allegations they have harmed local people and their livelihoods, as well as often not delivering the emissions reductions claimed.

Negative local impacts

In one CDM project in Uganda, Carbon Market Watch said villagers were being denied access to a tree plantation’s land which they used to grow food, graze livestock and gather firewood. In another CDM project in India, the National Green Tribunal found a waste incineration plant was releasing cancer-causing toxic chemicals into Delhi.

Road row in protected forest exposes Kenya’s climate conundrum

A hydro-electric plant in Guatemala, financed using the CDM, stopped local people reaching water to fish, wash coffee and bathe, while another plant in Chile diverted rivers, endangering the water supply to the country’s capital Santiago.

To prevent such abuses, governments have agreed that the CDM’s replacement – under Article 6.4 of the Paris pact – will have processes to make appeals and raise grievances. The appeals procedure is to challenge projects before they begin, and the grievance procedure will apply once they are in place.

Retribution risk

Only people directly affected by a carbon credit project can file a grievance – and only if they have suffered “adverse effects of a social, economic or environmental nature” caused by it.

After a grievance form has been filled in and published on the UN climate change website, an independent panel will have two weeks to put together recommendations to the Article 6.4 supervisory body, which makes the final decision on actions to be taken “as it deems appropriate”.

There will be no cost to filing a grievance, despite the supervisory body previously discussing fees of up to $5,000.

Loss and damage board speeds up work to allow countries direct access to funds

Complaints must, however, be submitted in one of the UN’s six official languages – Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish – a requirement which Mulder called “a big problem” that “will specifically hit people who are most in need of protection”.

She added that the new procedures will not do enough to protect complainants from retribution from carbon credit sellers. “Sometimes it can be very sensitive if you file a grievance, but then there’s local tensions – and there’s also the project proponent who is right there and of course doesn’t want you to file a grievance,” she said.

Although negotiators have now agreed the appeals and grievance procedure, they were unable to approve a full set of rules for the Article 6.4 carbon market at the COP27 or COP28 summits in the past two years. They will try again at COP29 in November, and hope to have the market up and running by early 2025.

(Reporting by Joe Lo; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post UN agrees carbon market safeguards to tackle green land grabs appeared first on Climate Home News.

For German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock, all “those who can” – and “in particular the strongest polluters of today” – should step up, in addition to industrialised nations that already provide funding. “Strong economies share strong responsibilities,” she said in a nod to G20 countries on Thursday at the Petersberg Climate Dialogue in Berlin, an annual gathering for the world’s top climate diplomats.

Baerbock’s views are widely shared by other rich countries, but they face stiff opposition from the upper-middle income nations – such as China and Saudi Arabia – referenced in her remarks.

Those governments argue that the 2015 Paris Agreement puts the responsibility of fulfilling climate finance obligations squarely on the shoulders of developed countries – and want to keep it that way.

Negotiators from China and Saudi Arabia spelled that out once again this week in Cartagena, Colombia, during this year’s first round of technical discussions that should pave the way to an agreement on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for finance at the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan.

“We will not entertain a renegotiation of the contributors and the recipients of NCQG,” said Chao Feng, China’s finance negotiator, on Wednesday. His words were repeated shortly afterward by Saudi Arabia’s Mohammad Ayoub.

More money for more action

The new climate finance goal is the most important decision expected to be taken at this year’s climate summit.

Experts believe an ambitious deal can play a crucial role in getting developing countries, especially the poorest ones, to commit to stronger action on emissions and adaptation as they draft their new national climate plans due in early 2025.

Without clear signals on the amount and quality of money on the table, the fear is that governments will fail to raise the bar on climate ambition and put an international goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C beyond reach.

Peak COP? UN looks to shrink Baku and Belém climate summits

After more than two years of discussions and with time running low, negotiators remain at odds over the most fundamental elements of the goal: how large the overall sum should be, what it needs to pay for, over how many years, and the best way to monitor the money.

At a four-day session in Cartagena ending this Friday, negotiators are attempting to iron out some of those knots and sketch the first outline of a deal.

Azerbaijan’s vision

In laying out his vision for November’s UN summit in Baku, the COP29 incoming president, Mukhtar Babayev, acknowledged in Berlin that finance is “one of the most challenging topics of climate diplomacy”, adding that there are “strong and well-founded views on all sides”.

“We are listening to all parties to understand their concerns and help them refine potential landing zones based on a shared vision of success so that we can deliver a fair and ambitious new goal,” he added.

For Marc Weissgerber, executive director of E3G’s Berlin office, Babayev’s speech outlined “important elements of a multifaceted solution to the finance challenges, but what is needed are clearly defined diplomatic pathways”.

“It needs to be seen how Azerbaijan can contribute – as a bridge-builder – to this essential challenge,” he added. 

Moving past $100bn

Talks have also been strained by eroding trust following rich nations’ failure to honour a pledge made nearly 15 years ago to mobilise $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020. They now “look likely” to have belatedly met the goal in 2022, according to an assessment by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based on preliminary data that is not publicly available.

Germany’s Baerbock said on Thursday that industrialised countries need to “continue to live up” to their responsibilities and jointly fulfill their $100 billion payment”. But, to get beyond that mark, she called on “those who can” to join their efforts.

Baerbock argued that the world has changed since the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992 when developed countries that have since provided international climate finance made up 80% of the global economy.

Will blossom of reform bear fruit? Spring Meetings leave too much to do

Most developing nations strongly oppose any changes or reinterpretation of the UNFCCC that would lead to a reclassification of a country’s status.

E3G’s Weissgerber said the question of expanding the pool of contributors is linked with the development of ambitious climate plans. “Both sides must compromise,” he added. “The existing donor base needs to show that it can be trusted to honour its financial commitments, while at the same time, large emitters such as China and the Gulf States should send a clear signal of ambitious [emission] reduction efforts”.

Innovative sources of finance

Developing countries – excluding China – need an estimated $2.4 trillion a year to meet their climate and development needs. But, Baerbock pointed out in Berlin, those sums cannot come only out of government budgets already facing constraints.

So called “innovative sources of finance” are among the most talked-about options to unlock additional funds. Things like wealth taxes on billionaires or shipping levies have been rising up the political agenda this year, but still face either strong opposition or a lack of agreement over how the money should be used.

Much hope is also pinned on wide-ranging reforms of multilateral development banks to channel more money into climate action for the most vulnerable.

COP29’s Babayev said those institutions “have a special role” to play. But he expressed disappointment at the pace of change seen during last week’s Spring Meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.  “While we heard a great deal of concern and worry, we did not yet see adequate and sufficient action,” he said. “That must change.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Stiell said this month that he personally “would certainly like to see future COPs reduce in size”, telling an audience at London’s Chatham House think-tank that “bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better”.

In Dubai, where the 2023 summit was held from November 30 to December 13, the Expo City site was so large that important delegates were ferried around on golf buggies while electric scooters were available to get around the public area, known as the Green Zone.

“Size does not necessarily translate to the quality of outcomes,” Stiell said in London, noting that the UN climate change secretariat (UNFCCC) is discussing the issue with the hosts of COP29 in Azerbaijan this year and COP30 next year in Brazil.

Last week, Climate Home reporters visited the COP29 host city of Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan – on a tour sponsored by the COP29 presidency – and also the location of COP30, the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém, to see how preparations are going for the November 2024 and 2025 gatherings.

Azerbaijan’s government is expecting just 40,000 people to come to the Baku Olympic Stadium for the talks this year, while Belém’s remoteness, congested roads and lack of hotels are likely to substantially limit how many people can attend the “Amazon COP”.

The number of people attending COPs has shot up in recent years. Close to 40,000 people went to COP26 in Glasgow, around 50,000 were in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh for COP27 and nearly 84,000 headed to Dubai last year. But most of the 28 COPs held since 1995 have been attended by fewer than 10,000 people.

Just over half of last year’s participants belonged to government delegations, with most of the rest comprising staff working at the conference or activists from non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

In practice, the boundaries of these categories are blurred though, as government delegations often include business representatives, NGO employees, journalists and others.

Baku’s Olympic Stadium

The government of Azerbaijan will host COP29 in the country’s Caspian seaside capital, Baku. A member of the organising committee told Climate Home they are expecting around 40,000 people.

The government has not had much time to prepare, as it was only tasked with the presidency last November at COP28 after Eastern Europe’s geopolitical divisions delayed the decision on which country would host the summit.

But it already has a venue: the Olympic Stadium on the outskirts of Baku. According to state media, COP29 chief operations officer Narmin Jarchalova said temporary structures will be built around the stadium to accommodate the negotiations and side events. These are likely to be in car-park areas.

The city is used to hosting major events. Ten thousand come each year for Formula One’s Baku Grand Prix and the 69,870-capacity Olympic Stadium has hosted the 2015 European Games, big concerts, the 2019 Europa League football final and Euro 2020 matches, although no Olympic Games despite the name.

Climate Home visited the area in April while in Baku, as part of a press trip organised by the COP29 presidency team. The stadium is connected to the city centre, where most hotels are located, by a Soviet-era metro railway with a one-way journey taking around 45 minutes.

A car journey should take about half of that, 20 minutes, but heavy traffic gridlocked the main roads in and out of Baku when Climate Home visited.

The Baku Olympic Stadium (Photo: Matteo Civillini)

Climate Home asked the COP29 team for information on how the temporary COP facilities will be built, powered and heated sustainably during the summit, but had received no response at the time of publication.

In February, Climate Home revealed that the government had told hotels in Baku not to sell rooms for COP29’s November 11-22 dates until further notice.

In London this month, UN climate chief Stiell said, with regard to the number of participants, that “we have an opportunity with Azerbaijan and we’re engaging with them”. He did not give further details.

COPs usually feature one big climate demonstration on the middle Saturday of the two-week talks. The UNFCCC is talking to the COP29 team about how this will be enabled.

Protesters march on the middle Saturday of COP26 in Glasgow, UK, in 2021 (Photos: Insure Our Future)

In a meeting at the energy ministry last week, COP29 CEO and deputy energy minister Elnur Soltanov told journalists, including Climate Home, that these discussions were “fruitful”.

Human rights groups like Freedom House say Azerbaijan does not respect freedom of assembly. Police violently arrested opposition protesters in 2019.

Soltanov was asked if the climate march will be allowed to take place in the city, which is governed by Azerbaijan’s police force, or only in the COP29 venue, which is under the jurisdiction of UN security guards.

He replied that “this is too specific a question” but said that protest is “part and parcel of people expressing their views, their anger, their desperation”.

Brazil’s Amazon COP

On Belém, which is in northern Brazil near the Amazon rainforest, Stiell said he was “actively discussing with the Brazilians how we can reduce the size of the COP so that the logistics of it can be supported at that hosted destination”.

Last June, Brazilian climate ministry official André Corrêa Lago told local media he was expecting 40,000-50,000 people. But there are concerns that the city will struggle to cope with those numbers.

Belém is not a major tourist destination and has less than 6,000 hotel rooms. Even at last year’s Amazon Summit – a smaller event than a COP – participants reported difficulty finding rooms and rates soared.

Construction workers are currently turning a 1.6 km-long disused airport runway into the Parque de Cidade (City Park), which will be the size of about 70 football pitches. The park and its new buildings will be the main COP30 venue.

The government of Pará State says it is almost one-third finished. The federal government, meanwhile, is reportedly considering hosting part of COP30 in bigger cities like Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro.

A spokesperson for the federal government told Climate Home that “all possibilities to enable the reception of delegations and visitors are being evaluated”.

As well as the park and its new buildings, some of the conference will be held in an existing conference centre on the park’s southern tip called The Hangar – which hosted last year’s Amazon Summit.

The Hangar convention centre (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

For COP30 delegates though, finding a hotel room and getting to the venue are likely to be challenging. 

A spokesperson for the COP30 organising committee said last week that while 84,000 people went to COP28, the peak daily attendance was just 41,000 at the beginning of the conference when heads of state made their speeches.

An Ibis hotel near the COP30 site (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

The spokesperson told Climate Home the organisers are looking at bringing in cruise ships for COP participants to sleep on, refurbishing schools to serve as hostels and encouraging people to rent out their rooms on Airbnb.

To promote the “modernisation” of the city’s existing hotel rooms, the government has given hotel operators tax exemptions on purchases for new equipment like minibars, televisions and air-conditioning.

The city’s airport, which the government aims to improve before COP30, has few regular international connections and is over three hours by plane from Brazil’s major hubs like Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. 

There are no trains to Belém and getting the bus from Rio or Sao Paulo can take more than two days.

The Belém Bus Rapid Transit system is scheduled to be completed by COP30 (Photo: Alice Martins Morais)

Even inside the city, transport is challenging. The roads are congested, particularly in the centre where most of the hotels are, during rush-hour and when it rains.

The authorities have tried to solve the problem by widening roads and building dedicated bus lanes for a Bus Rapid Transit system.

While these are being constructed, they have made traffic worse – but the body in charge told Climate Home work is progressing according to schedule and should be completed by the second half of 2024 – well before the UN climate summit the following year.

“The new fleet will reinforce the capital’s transport system for COP30,” said a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Transport Management Centre, adding that 40 of the 265 new air-conditioned buses will be electric.

Argentinian scientists condemn budget cuts ahead of university protest

Nonetheless, the remoteness of the location is likely to translate into a bigger carbon footprint for delegates travelling from overseas.

While COPs have a sizable carbon footprint, researchers investigating misinformation have found this is often exaggerated on social and traditional media by those trying to undermine climate action.

Examples include pictures of private jets with captions falsely associating them with COP or of biofuel generators with captions erroneously claiming they are diesel.

Questioned about COPs’ carbon footprint by an audience member at London’s Chatham House, UN climate head Stiell replied that “at every COP, we get the reports – how many private planes [and] the CO2 footprint for hosting those COPs”.

But, he added, “taking a very pragmatic view, we need the right people around the table in order for this process to work and there will be a cost to that. How you ensure that those that are present are the ones necessary to contribute positively to the process is also important.”

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini in Baku, Alice Martins Morais in Belém and Joe Lo in London; videos by Fanis Kollias; editing by Joe Lo and Megan Rowling)

The post Peak COP? UN looks to shrink Baku and Belém climate summits appeared first on Climate Home News.

Tech giant Intel said in its 2023 Climate Transition Action Plan that it faces challenges in setting targets for cutting its greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi). The chip-maker is likely to be the first in a long list of companies to slowly break cover and admit that the SBTi is unfit for purpose.

As a professional sustainability advisor, I know that of the 5,000 or so companies that have signed up for the initiative, only a startling minority have robust and realistic plans for fulfilling their emissions-cutting commitments.

These ambitious yet under-interrogated targets are really just counterproductive “green-wishing”. When it comes to emission reductions, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. In other words, the perfect often becomes the enemy of the good.

The SBTi has been endorsed by the United Nations as a global decarbonisation framework. It requires companies to commit to an ‘absolute contraction’ of Scope 1 and 2 emissions of 90%, and for some organisations to make cuts to their Scope 3 emissions as well, by no later than 2050. Absolute contraction is essentially a carbon budget, set from year one.

UN climate chief calls for “quantum leap in climate finance”

We must first consider the implications that SBTi has for climate innovation and a company’s business model. Here we run into a major obstacle because currently, SBTi does not take into account abated emissions – the environmental benefit that technology provides.

Take Tesla. Tesla’s plan to scale production could never be SBTi-aligned But according to the EV maker’s impact report, the company helped to abate 2.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2022, which is more than the entire CO2 emissions of Malta.

Oxford PV is another example. It has succeeded in developing a breakthrough clean technology that makes solar photovoltaic panels 30% more efficient than average panels. Yet, despite the huge emission abatement potential of this technology, there’s no feasible way the company could scale, while being SBTi-aligned on its own emissions.

This points to a fundamental issue with the current limited and simplistic ‘territorial’ approach to carbon accounting. Instead, we must embrace more comprehensive strategies that can achieve meaningful and lasting reductions in carbon emissions.

Spring Meetings can jump-start financial reform for food and climate

Can SBTi, dreamt up in air-conditioned offices in the West, really tell innovative companies in emerging economies that they must make drastic emission cuts in their operations? For example, it would not be possible for South African clean energy start-up BioTherm Energy, or Nigerian solar company Lumos, to slash their emissions by 90%, all while delivering cleaner energy and pulling in tax revenue for their developing economies. After all, sea walls, flood barriers and drought-resistant crops need to be financed somehow.

The idea that we can contract our emissions with the technologies available today, by 90%, without triggering large-scale human and economic upheaval is a view rooted in dogma, not science or economics.

Anybody who has made New Year’s resolutions will know that a crash-diet that cuts your calorie intake by 90% is a pipe dream, especially if we don’t count calories burned. Instead, a gradual downsizing of snacking, along with a feasible, sustained increase in the intensity of exercise is far more likely to deliver the results you want.

Beyond the ‘green-wishing’, the SBTi’s design is fundamentally flawed because it allows businesses with over 250 employees to reduce their Scope 3 emissions on an intensity metrics basis (reduced energy per unit of production), but not smaller firms. For example, for an air travel company, this could be energy used per flight, or for a garment manufacturer, energy used per item of clothing produced.

European court rules climate inaction by states breaches human rights

SMEs make up 99% of businesses. To subject smaller, less well-resourced companies to a more stringent emissions-reduction requirement than larger firms seems bizarre.

So what’s the alternative? Every company should use an intensity metrics measurement, and set a transparent emissions target that is relative to an economic or operational variable, like emissions per unit of goods sold.

We know we need to carry on eating healthily – we now need to learn what exercise regime works best for us. Ultimately, we should be sceptical of any one-size-fits all plan pushed by those with no skin in the game.

An ‘intensity metrics’ basis for emissions reductions provides us with a far more attainable and universal decarbonisation framework. The need for a fair global system is clear. The SBTi, with its unrealistic and reductive approach, is simply not it.

This article argues that the SBTI’s rules are too stringent. We have also published a comment piece arguing they are too lax.

The post SBTi’s rigid emissions rules don’t reflect business reality appeared first on Climate Home News.

“It’s hard for any government to invest in renewables or climate resilience when the treasury coffers are bare, debt servicing costs have overtaken health spending, new borrowing is impossible and the wolves of poverty are at the door,” he said in a major speech at the Chatham House think-tank in London.

Climate finance has traditionally consisted mainly of wealthy governments and multilateral development banks giving loans and grants to developing countries to help them reduce planet-heating emissions and adapt to climate change.

But Stiell’s speech focused heavily on other sources of finance, which would not burden taxpayers in rich nations but are unlikely to be agreed in time for next year’s round of climate plans under the Paris Agreement.

Stiell said governments must agree at the Cop29 UN climate summit this year “a new target for climate finance that meets developing country needs”. But, he added, “it’s not enough to agree a target. We need a new deal on climate finance between developed and developing countries.”

Billionaires and boats

That would include “new sources of international climate finance, as the G20, International Maritime Organization (IMO) and others are working on”, he noted.

The Brazilian government, as chair of the G20, wants the group’s 20 major economies to agree a minimum tax on billionaires, and has hinted that some of this levy could be spent on climate finance.

Spring Meetings can jump-start financial reform for food and climate

But this has not been agreed – and is likely to prove controversial. E3G analyst Sima Kammourieh said geopolitical splits over the wars in Ukraine and Gaza had held back G20 negotiations, as had the recent death of the Brazilian diplomat leading the discussions, Daniel Machado da Fonseca.

Governments at the IMO, meanwhile, have agreed to put a price on shipping emissions. But the IMO and government shipping negotiators have suggested they want most of this money to be used to clean up the shipping industry, not for broader climate finance such as the new UN loss and damage fund.

Spring meetings

Ahead of next week’s spring meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), Stiell reiterated his support for the Bridgetown Agenda, a set of international financial reforms that would shift more multilateral funding into tackling climate change.

“The Spring Meetings are not a dress rehearsal. Averting a climate-driven economic catastrophe is core business,” Stiell said. “It can’t slip between the cracks of different mandates.”

So far, the biggest reform agreed is a change to the World Bank’s debt-to-equity ratio of 1%. That will free up $4 billion a year – but while reformers are calling for more, opponents fear credit rating agencies will downgrade the bank, making it more expensive to borrow money.

European court rules climate inaction by states breaches human rights

The newest proposal in Stiell’s speech was his call for the IMF to make “more use” of an obscure pot of money called the Catastrophe Containment Relief Trust (CCRT).

The CCRT provides grants for debt relief to the world’s poorest countries when they are hit by disasters that meet a preset threshold of destruction.

But the IMF’s latest annual report described the trust as “critically underfunded” with “insufficient resources to provide significant relief” when another disaster strikes.

Old-fashioned finance?

French President Emmanuel Macron has been a vocal supporter of a new global pact on finance that would push more money into climate action into debt-strapped developing nations, hosting many world leaders at a summit in Paris last year to discuss the reforms.

But last month, France cut its aid budget by 12.5%. The UK has also reduced its aid spending in recent years, and shuffled the numbers to count more as climate finance – while a potential Donald Trump victory threatens the US’s already relatively low level of international climate funding.

Former French diplomat, Laurence Tubiana, who is now chair of the European Climate Foundation, told journalists yesterday that in Europe the “fiscal space is just non-existent”, adding “the agenda of the day is to cut public spending”.

But Sara Jane Ahmed, finance adviser to the V20 group of climate-vulnerable countries, told Climate Home that rich nations can create more fiscal space by printing money, borrowing, taxing or cutting spending elsewhere.

In London, Stiell said a “quantum leap in climate finance is both essential and entirely achievable”, and argued that providing more is in the interests of powerful developed countries.

Without climate finance, he said, poorer nations would not submit bold new climate plans and then “all economies, the G7’s included, will soon be in serious and permanent strife”.

The post UN climate chief calls for “quantum leap in climate finance” appeared first on Climate Home News.

Set against the global backdrop of poverty, hunger, climate change, debt and conflict, it can feel hard to be hopeful at present. But there is a real win-win opportunity – as well as a deep moral obligation – to heal geopolitical divisions, foster peace, alleviate poverty, ensure food and nutrition security, address the climate crisis, and deliver a better, fairer future for people and planet. It lies in the reforms of the global financial architecture necessary to deliver the additional sum of at least $3 trillion required to support countries to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

Last year’s international meetings in Paris and Nairobi – leading to the Paris Pact for People and Planet, and the Nairobi Declaration – have made the case for debt relief, enhanced international taxation and global financial architecture reform. These reforms will be centre-stage at next week’s Spring Meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in Washington DC.

Here the world must urgently come together to articulate and deliver a clear plan for how to end hunger and build resilient food systems, backed by real leadership, enhanced coordination, accountability and finance. The task at hand is to connect the global imperative to act on food security, sustainable agriculture and malnutrition with the broader efforts underway to drive a reform agenda and to replenish the World Bank’s concessional lending arm, the International Development Association (IDA).

At UN climate talks in Dubai last year, 159 world leaders committed themselves to action on food security and climate change by signing the COP28 Emirates Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action – the first of its kind. The commitments in this declaration now need to be linked with the emerging global plan for increased finance.

Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation?

African potential

Africa is ground zero for the climate crisis, but is also the continent where solutions will have the most impact. Of the 9.8 billion people expected to live on the planet by 2050, a quarter will be African. Financial reforms must unlock climate-positive green industrialization and transform food systems across the continent in a way that is compatible with sustainable and inclusive economic growth. But the ultimate test will be whether the funds released reach the communities who need them most, when they need them, producing the desired results of ending poverty, building climate-resilient infrastructure, saving nature and biodiversity from extinction, and delivering prosperous lives for all.

This goal is within our reach – with evidence and farmers’ testimonials showing the success of innovative models such as the Arcos community-led scheme in Rwanda, which has empowered smallholder farmers to preserve and restore forests and agricultural landscapes. To date, 12,000 community members have grown 4.2 million trees, including fruit trees for boosting income and nutrition, nitrogen-fixing species to improve soil health, fodder species for livestock and indigenous species for biodiversity, on more than 20,000 hectares. The farmers have also built terraces across the hilly landscapes to reduce soil erosion and prevent pollution of lakes and rivers.

Nigeria’s path to net zero should be fully lined with trees – and fairness

Across much of the Global South, there are numerous such inspiring examples of where communities and societies have established social safety nets, fostered rural development, and promoted gender and social equity. These approaches have enhanced  communities’ capacity to plan for and respond to more extreme weather, to continue to deliver their crops to market despite climate change and other challenges, and to provide nutritious food for their families.

Smallholder farmers produce a third of the world’s food, yet receive only 1.7 percent of climate finance. Globally, there must be a major shift in financial flows to change that, including efforts by international development partners such as the World Bank and the philanthropic sector. National government leadership is a prerequisite to success, including revising agricultural subsidy programs to ensure they incentivize farming practices and behaviour that will help the world close the hunger gap while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting biodiversity and restoring degraded lands.

Global momentum growing

This year there is a golden opportunity to make progress on financing for food systems. As a result of consistent advocacy – including from Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, Kenyan President William Ruto and World Bank President Ajay Banga – an additional $300–400 billion in low-cost concessional finance and lending has been promised over the next decade by the multilateral development banks (MDBs) to low- and lower-middle income countries.

This recalibration of the international finance institutions’ balance sheets is a welcome development to build on – and demonstrates that climate and development commitments can be honoured. The social, economic and environmental case for making these kinds of investments in food security is unequivocal. Well-designed investments deliver four-fold benefits: they strengthen food security and nutrition; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; support nations and communities to adapt to a changing climate; and protect and restore nature.

The Brazilian government has committed to put zero hunger, sustainable agriculture and food systems centre-stage at the G20 this year, through its Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty, and has committed to work closely with Italy and the rest of the G7 on this agenda. President Lula has also rightly placed the ongoing deeper reboot and replenishment of the multilateral development bank system at the heart of his G20 agenda. His leadership – in partnership with African governments and the G7, and harnessing such key moments as the UN Summit for the Future – could drive major progress at this critical time, starting at the Spring Meetings this April.

The post Spring Meetings can jump-start financial reform for food and climate  appeared first on Climate Home News.

International oil companies, led by US firm ExxonMobil, plan to extract 11 billion barrels of oil from Guyana’s ocean floor and sell it abroad to be burned, thereby worsening global warming. The country pumped its first oil in 2020.

Despite this, late last month Guyanese president Irfaan Ali defended his country’s green credentials in a heated interview with the BBC’s Hardtalk programme, which went viral on social media. “Even with our greatest exploration of the oil and gas resources we have now, we will still be net zero,” he said, referring to the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have the lowest rate of deforestation in the world… Guyana will still be net zero”

President Irfaan Ali says Guyana won’t take lectures on climate change as it exploits its huge offshore oil and gas reserves

https://t.co/TKxhR6r3ur pic.twitter.com/xIJTgRsfZP

— BBC HARDtalk (@BBCHARDtalk) March 29, 2024

The case of Guyana shows how countries with large forests can use unclear rules on counting national carbon emissions to justify fossil fuel production.

Michael Lazarus, a scientist with the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), told Climate Home it is “absurd” to claim that capturing and storing carbon dioxide (CO2) in forests offsets the emissions impact of oil production, as “they have nothing to do with each other than geographic proximity”.

Official United Nations carbon accounting rules, drawn up nearly 20 years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), allow Guyana to claim net-zero status because they do not specify which types of forest governments can take credit for preserving – and also because the emissions from oil are counted in the country where it is used and burned, not where it is produced.

Experts said governments are taking advantage of having barely-touched forests on their land that suck up CO2, and argued that fossil fuel-rich nations like Guyana should bear part of the moral responsibility for the emissions of their polluting products.

“The problem is that within the country, you are allowing the emissions to continue or even to rise, and then you are trying to balance that out internally by saying that we have this forest,” said Souparna Lahiri from the Global Forest Coalition.

Carbon-negative club

Around 93% of Guyana is covered in forest – more than any other nation but its neighbour Suriname. The population numbers just 800,000, mostly clustered on its coastline, and those people on average emit slightly less than the global average per capita.

Although the country’s non-forestry emissions are growing steadily, CO2 absorption by its vast forests more than compensates for that.

In its emissions inventory sent to the United Nations, the government claimed: “Guyana is a net carbon sink, with its lush managed forest cover removing up to ten times more than the emissions produced in the country up to the year 2022”.

Other small, sparsely-populated forest-covered nations like Suriname, Panama and Bhutan assert they are carbon-negative too.

While not claiming the same accolade, leaders of bigger forest nations like Russia and Brazil have also used their forests to defend their climate record.

In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin told a US-hosted summit: “Russia makes a gigantic contribution to absorbing global emissions – both ours and from elsewhere – owing to the great absorption capacity of our ecosystems.”

Despite rising Brazilian deforestation under Jair Bolsonaro, the former president told the same summit that the Amazon’s carbon absorption was evidence that “Brazil is at the very forefront of efforts to tackle global warming”.

Managed vs unmanaged

International carbon accounting rules essentially leave it up to governments to decide how much credit they claim for CO2 absorption by national forests, with many opting to count it all.

In 2006, scientists working with the IPCC came up with a distinction between “managed” land – where greenhouse gas emissions and removals should be attributed to humans and nations – and “unmanaged” land where forests are natural and governments should neither be credited nor blamed for emissions levels.

The IPCC defined “managed” land as “land where human interventions and practices have been applied to perform production, ecological or social functions”. Those could include planting a commercial forest, protecting a forest from fire, or designating it for conservation.

In its national emissions inventory report, Guyana does not differentiate between “managed” and “unmanaged land” – and claims credit for CO2 sequestration by all of its forests.

Guyanese forestry expert Michelle Kalamandeen told Climate Home the government is doing well at protecting the rainforest but should not classify it all as managed by the state. Much of it – particularly in the south – is inaccessible, so “they’re just relying on remoteness for protection of it”, she explained.

The Global Forest Coalition’s Lahiri agreed, saying that most of Guyana’s forest seems to be intact old-growth forest “so it is not a plantation or managed forest in that sense”.

A global issue

From this perspective, Guyana is by no means the only country that appears to be over-counting its emission sinks. A 2018 study in the journal Carbon Balance and Management found that over fourth-fifths of the 101 countries analysed counted all their land as managed.

Even those countries that make a distinction often counted all of their forest – but not all their land – as managed. Australia is one example.

Even the rare few that consider some of their forests “unmanaged” have drawn the line in different places.

Russia counts most of its forests as managed with a few exceptions, the US counts everything outside of Alaska (and much inside it) as managed, and Canada counts everything it tries to protect from fires.

The USA’s “managed” land (blue) and “unmanaged” land (grey) (Photos: Carbon Balance and Management)

Brazil stands out as the exception, counting just under half of its huge forests as managed and foregoing a carbon accounting boost from the other half.

Oil emissions

The other carbon accounting orthodoxy Guyana relies on is attributing emissions from burning fossil fuels like oil to the countries where they are burned, not where they are produced.

The vast majority of Guyana’s oil will be exported to regions like Europe and Asia or to neighbouring Brazil, meaning that emissions from its use will be counted there.

This way of measuring emissions prevents them from being double-counted – but it lets extracting nations off the hook for the carbon pollution caused by the fossil fuels they sell abroad.

Kalamandeen said oil-producing countries have some responsibility for the emissions created by the consumption of their fossil fuels, while the home nations of fossil fuel companies should also step up. In Guyana’s case, that would be the US and China, as the oil extraction consortium is made up of ExxonMobil, Hess Corporation and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation.

SEI’s Lazarus described the current system as an “essential accountability framework for governments and civil society” – but agreed that producers should be held morally accountable too.

Without that, he said, “we’d turn a blind eye to… the lock-in effects of long-lived fossil fuel supply investments that impede the global clean energy transition”.

The post Forest carbon accounting allows Guyana to stay net zero while pumping oil appeared first on Climate Home News.

The green policy aims to boost both climate action and the heavily-indebted Zambian economy, but taxi drivers in Lusaka, the southern African country’s capital, told Climate Home they are suffering from rising prices for driving and food.

“We have been hit hard,” said 29-year old Masuzyo Kampamba, as he motored down a two-lane highway towards past crowds of children celebrating national youth day last month. 

Kampamba doesn’t feel able to get married and start a family as he would not be able to provide for them due to the high cost of living.

Waiting outside the upmarket East Park Mall, driver Stephen Musanda said he is struggling too. 

Filling up his regular Toyota taxi used to cost 17 kwacha ($0.70) a litre – for which he now pays 31 kwacha ($1.30). “It’s hard for a common driver like me to survive,” he said.

A Total petrol station near Lusaka’s Central Business District on March 10, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

IMF’s global push

In debt-strapped developing countries like Zambia, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is using its financial power to push for the removal of fossil fuel subsidies. Similar IMF-backed policies in Haiti and Ecuador have led to mass protests in the last few years.

At the Cop28 UN climate summit last December, governments agreed to contribute to a global effort to transition away from fossil fuels “in a just, orderly and equitable manner”. What that means in practice is still being worked out.

In Zambia and other places like Nigeria, many ordinary citizens feel the shift away from fossil fuel subsidies has not been done fairly so far, with the burden falling on those who cannot afford it. Even supporters of the reforms in Zambia admit they are “painful”.

On a global level, the IMF argues that subsidies incentivise the use of fossil fuels like oil and gas, making climate change worse, while also being expensive, wasteful and skewed towards helping the rich more than the poor.

My message at today’s @wef session on climate and nature: pull back on harmful fossil fuel subsidies and use those resources for climate action. With action, we can leave a heathy planet to our children and grandchildren. #wef24 pic.twitter.com/Uh7TcyafHI

— Kristalina Georgieva (@KGeorgieva) January 17, 2024

In a bid to boost sustainable development, the Washington-based lender has encouraged governments to spend the savings from reducing their support for fossil fuels on climate action, healthcare or education. Zambia has used the money it has freed up for paying down the national debt and making public schools free.

Richard Bridle, a subsidies expert at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), generally supports such reforms, but said proper analysis must be carried out to identify those most affected and compensate them.

“Generally, the poor don’t have cars,” he said, but there are “particularly affected groups” whose business costs are exposed to fuel prices – like taxi drivers – and they require special attention.

“You’ve got to have steps being taken to understand the impact, particularly on the most vulnerable groups, and – where possible – mitigate that impact,” Bridle said.

Education not petrol

When Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema was elected in August 2021, he inherited $800 million a year of spending on fossil fuel subsidies – 4% of gross domestic product (GDP) – and debt of almost $1 billion which the government was failing even to pay interest on. 

He turned to the IMF for another loan – and in December 2021, Zambia was granted a $1.4-billion extended credit facility. 

Announcing this credit, the IMF’s then mission chief for Zambia, Allison Holland, said the conditions were that Zambia should cut what the IMF sees as “inefficient” subsidies, reduce its debt level, and increase spending on education and health. 

ZAMBIA’S #IMF PROGRAMME: Message from the IMF Mission Chief for Zambia, Ms. ALLISON HOLLAND.@S_Musokotwane @KGeorgieva @IMFAfrica pic.twitter.com/j17kCKck8t

— Ministry of Finance & National Planning – Zambia (@mofnpzambia) September 4, 2022

The IMF sees subsidies as “inefficient” if they hinder economic growth, exacerbate air pollution and climate change, and benefit those with high incomes. Holland said fuel subsidies were an example of spending that is “wasteful” and “doesn’t help the poor”.

In response, the government completely removed direct fossil fuel subsidies for 2022 and, in October that year, it restored taxes on petrol and diesel which the previous government had cut.

Hichilema also announced that public school education would be made free from January 2022. “When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people,” he said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

Ever imagined that you’d be entering January without worrying about school fees? Jan 2022, if you have a child in public school, you won’t pay anything.
This is what we promised & have delivered. When we removed fuel subsidies, this is what we intended for our people. #Zambia pic.twitter.com/b49D9CTigV

— Hakainde Hichilema (@HHichilema) December 29, 2021

The government is planning to boost spending on social protection too. In 2020, it spent just 0.7% of GDP on welfare programmes like giving money and food to poor people, but by 2025 it plans to raise this to 1.6%, bringing it in line with the African average.

“Overall, for low-income households, the benefits from increased social spending should outweigh the impact from the removal of fuel and electricity subsidies,” a 2022 IMF analysis said.

Painful but necessary

During a reporting trip this March, Climate Home asked Zambia’s environment minister, a farmer and a rural teacher about the fuel subsidy cuts. All said the measures had been painful, making driving, farming and eating more expensive – but they saw them as necessary.

Green economy and environment minister Collins Nzovu said “there is going to be pain” from removing subsidies, but asked “were we going to keep accumulating debt or we’re going to say this is where we end?” 

In the village of Katoba in Lusaka province, secondary school teacher Constancy Mbwenya said spending on subsidies had previously diverted money from health and education.

The subsidy cuts are “a good policy”, he said, but required a period of adjustment. “People need to acclimatise to the new situation,” he explained. “That’s where the hassle is a bit, but then eventually people will understand the importance of removing the subsidies.”

Is water provision in drought-hit Zambia climate ‘loss and damage’ or adaptation?

At the steering wheel, Musanda and Kampamba welcomed free education – although they questioned whether there are enough teachers per pupil, and whether the children can afford to eat at home because of food inflation.

“It’s right because those who were not going to school… are now going to school,” said Musanda. But, he added, “it is difficult for us who used to survive on subsidies”.

IISD’s Bridle compared the situation to France’s “gilets jaunes” (yellow vest) protests, sparked in late 2018 when the French government tried to hike taxes on petrol and diesel and spend the money on climate action. 

The rural working class felt the costs of green policies were falling unfairly on them, while they failed to see direct benefits, Bridle said. The large-scale opposition to the policy forced the government into a U-turn and hurt the popularity of French President Emmanuel Macron.

Taxi driver Musanda said similar social unrest was unlikely in Zambia: “We are not used to doing protests.” Instead, many voters might look to bring in a new government at the country’s next elections in 2026, he noted.

According to Bridle, that risk is why governments often rush through reforms well ahead of the next election. 

In Zambia, less than one in 20 people own a vehicle, so the vast majority are less affected by the subsidy increase than Musanda.

Corn and peanut farmer Benson Chipungu poses in his field on March 7, 2024 (Photo: Joe Lo)

Benson Chipungu, who spoke to Climate Home on his maize and peanut farm in Chongwe village, 50 km east of Lusaka, said it now costs him more to fill up his tractor with diesel – but he is willing to accept the change nonetheless.

“I think it’s fine because [the government] has made that decision knowing that maybe the subsidies were being a burden on the economy,” he said. “It can be painful – but if… they think it’s going to come out right, then it’s fine – you can try to hang in there.”

Travel for this story was funded by Catholic Relief Services.

The post Zambia’s fossil-fuel subsidy cuts help climate and kids – but taxi drivers suffer appeared first on Climate Home News.

This week, the UN climate change body (UNFCCC) confirmed that this year’s Regional Climate Weeks will be cancelled until further notice due to lack of funding.

The update comes shortly after UNFCCC chief Simon Stiell made an urgent plea at the Copenhagen Climate Ministerial last week to plug the body’s funding gap, stating that it is facing “severe financial challenges” – putting a rising workload at risk due to “governments’ failure to provide enough money”.

The suspension of the Regional Climate Weeks is hugely disappointing news.

It means that a vital platform to express the concerns of people and communities most affected by climate change has been taken away.

UN’s climate body faces “severe financial challenges” which put work at risk

The climate weeks are a vital opportunity to bring a stronger regional voice – those who are footing the bill in developing countries for a crisis they have done the least to cause – to the international table in the lead-up to the UN COP climate summits.

Last year we saw four regional climate weeks: Africa Climate Week in Nairobi, Kenya; Middle East and North Africa Climate Week in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Latin America and the Caribbean Climate Week in Panama City, Panama; and Asia-Pacific Climate Week in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.

These attracted 26,000 participants in 900 sessions and brought together policymakers, scientists and other experts from the multiple regions, with fundamental contributions feeding into the COP28 agenda. 

At Africa Climate Summit alone, over 20 commitments were made by African heads of state – commitments and announcements that equated to a combined investment of nearly $26 billion from public, private sector and multilateral development banks, philanthropic foundations and other financing partners.

This is the right way forward because, while extreme weather events affect all of us, we know their impacts are not felt equally.

Shrinking water access

Extremes of both drought and floods are threatening people’s access to the three essentials they need to survive – clean water, decent toilets and good hygiene – as boreholes run dry, floods wash away latrines, and supplies are contaminated by silt and debris.

Around the world, ordinary people – farmers, community leaders, family members – are doing everything they can to adapt to the realities of life on the frontlines of climate change.

They’re working together to monitor water reserves, conserving supplies to make every drop last. They’re sowing crops that can withstand droughts, and planting trees to protect them from floods. And they’re building with future threats in mind, raising homes and toilets off the ground and making them safe from floodwaters.

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Each Regional Climate Week provides a vital platform for those shouldering the heaviest burden of the climate crisis – such as women and girls, people experiencing marginalisation, and Indigenous communities – to share their experiences, expertise, and unique perspectives.  

The climate crisis is a water crisis, and the people on the frontlines of this crisis are vital to solving it. 

With leadership and participation from those vulnerable communities and groups, we are all better equipped to adapt to our changing climate – and to ensure that everyone, everywhere has climate-resilient water, sanitation and hygiene.

Each and every UN climate conference matters. We urgently need global governments to fuel their words with action, open their wallets and prioritise the voices, experiences and solutions of those most affected by the climate crisis. If not, we’ll continue to see climate change wash away people’s futures.

Dulce Marrumbe is head of partnerships and advocacy at WaterAid’s regional office for Southern Africa.

The post Cancellation of UN climate weeks removes platform for worst-hit communities appeared first on Climate Home News.

Debt-laden growers want an existing government procurement system to be made legally binding and to raise the minimum price for a wider range of crops – which could help them move away from thirsty rice and wheat farming.

But some agricultural analysts argue that bolstering the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for produce would not resolve the wider climate problems farmers face, nor ease demand for scarce water resources.

Expectations mount as loss and damage fund staggers to its feet

Deedar Singh, a 50-year-old farmer from Patiala, joined a march towards Delhi in mid-February and spoke to Climate Home at a camp on the Punjab-Haryana border, 200 km from Delhi. He participated in a similar mobilisation back in 2020 that lasted for just over a year.

With a family of nine to support, he complained that his five-acre landholding and meagre income of 200,000 rupees per year ($2,400) cannot provide a decent quality of life, especially as weather extremes worsen.

“If untimely rain destroys our rice or hot temperatures shrink the wheat grain, our crops are ruined, leaving us unable to even cover the costs of the next cropping season,” said Singh. Most people in his village rely on financial support sent by their children who have migrated abroad, he added.

Farmers gather at the Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, to burn effigies of political leaders and shout slogans in support of the protest, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Globally, India accounts for 10% of agricultural output and is the second-largest producer of rice and wheat. It is also the biggest consumer of groundwater. Its 260 million farmers depend heavily on depleting water reserves to irrigate their crops.

That means they are also struggling with climate change, as about 65% of the country’s cropped area depends on rainwater. Erratic rainfall and shorter winters are harming yields, with heavy downpours causing flooding and a sudden spike in temperatures a year ago causing wheat grain to shrink.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) reports that for every 1C increase in temperature, wheat production suffers a significant decline of 4-5 million tonnes.

Debt drives suicides

Water resources are running low and farmers’ input costs have soared – yet the government-administered minimum support price (MSP) has not risen accordingly, said Ramandeep Singh Mann, an agriculturist and member of Kisan Mazdoor Morcha, an umbrella body spearheading the current protest.

That has left farmers with no money to pay for contingencies and has forced many to take on high levels of debt, he said.

“At some point your back breaks. When that happens, there is no other solution but to take extreme steps,” he added, referring to suicides among indebted farmers.

To boost falling yields, farmers are using more inputs like water and fertilisers, leaving them with higher production costs and lower profit margins.

Some states have provided free or subsidised electricity, as well as loan forgiveness for debt-strapped farmers, but since 2014, only half of the intended waiver recipients have benefited, according to a study by the State Bank of India.

These woes have fuelled a growing wave of protest, as farmers feel they have no other recourse.

Nonetheless, Sardara Singh Johl, a 97-year-old agricultural economist from Ludhiana and former vice-chancellor at Punjab Agricultural University, said the latest mobilisation was unlikely to result in the dialogue required to address the broader problems facing farmers.

“They already have MSP for wheat and rice, and these are high-paying crops. Even if you reduce the price risk with MSP, what can you do about the other uncertainties?” he asked.

In mid-February, at the last round of talks with the government, ministers proposed to purchase five additional crops – moong dal, urad dal, tur dal, maize and cotton – from farmers at an MSP for five years through central agencies, but farmers rejected the offer.

Jagjit Singh Dallewal, leader of the non-political Samyukta Kisan Morcha group, which is also involved in organising the farmers’ protest, said the proposal would mainly benefit farmers willing to switch from paddy or wheat to other crops and would not ensure a stable income.

Farmer leaders give a press conference at Shambhu border, between Punjab and Haryana, on February 27 2024. Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Water reserves shrink amid over-use

Economist Johl argued that, irrespective of its profitability, rice is no longer a suitable crop for Punjab as its water table recedes to a dangerously low level.

A study by Punjab Agricultural University found that between 1998 and 2018, groundwater levels in the region had dropped drastically, from 10 metres below ground to 30 metres, largely due to a shift from traditional canal irrigation to widespread adoption of tube wells for water extraction.

Farmers are aware of Punjab’s dwindling water resources, said Mann, but they need guaranteed price support for more crops in order to shift away from water-intensive rice cultivation.

“They know that if they are able to earn as much as they do from paddy, they will grow other crops. But without fair support of MSP, it is hard to make that switch,” he said.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

Uday Chandra, a professor of government at the Georgetown University in Qatar, said key food-supplying states like Punjab have struggled to get their problems heard and dealt with by the national government.

“The problem is that what the Punjab farmer wants isn’t sustainable,” he said, referring to the state’s shrinking water supplies. “The best way would be to bring them into discussion and find a solution that is specific to them.”

Trucks lined up at the Shambhu border, 200 km from Delhi, after being stopped by the central government from advancing to the Indian capital, February 27 2024 (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Thousands of farmers who were initially stopped by heavy police control outside Delhi have now made it to the capital after receiving permission to protest at the Ramlila Maidan ground. They are determined to maintain their mobilisation during the general elections – which will take place over several weeks from late April until the start of June – if their MSP demands go unmet.

In 2021, angry farmers backed down after the government rowed back on laws that had sparked huge protests. But they have now returned to direct action, calling on the government to fulfill its promises, including demands for pensions, debt waivers, penalties for selling counterfeit agricultural inputs, and withdrawal from the World Trade Organization.

Call for high-tech solutions

Mann said climate change is compounding their woes – yet while the government acknowledges the problem, it is doing little to help the sector deal with it.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

However, at the ICAR’s Annual General Meeting last month, Arjun Munda, Union Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, said the Modi government is committed to bolstering the agricultural sector and supporting farmers, including with high-yielding, resilient seed varieties released by ICAR in the past decade.

It also issues Agromet weather-based crop advisories with the India Meteorological Department to about 60 million farmers twice a week and promotes practices for more efficient use of water and nutrients.

But protesting farmers said the government’s measures are failing to help them adapt adequately to a changing climate and water shortages.

Bhupinder Singh, a farmer in Punjab’s Mohali district, discusses his transition to organic farming methods as a means to prevent the burning of stubble remaining after rice cultivation, November 26 2023. (Photo: Kanika Gupta)

Haranjeet Singh, 53, of Ludhiana in Punjab, said the rice variety farmers are now planting gives smaller harvests, after the government suspended use of a more productive but thirstier variety which also took longer to mature and produced more stubble – a major cause of air pollution when burned.

“Unfortunately, these new seeds don’t give us as much yield,” he said. “We are spending the same amount of money and getting less in return.”

Madhura Swaminathan, daughter of the late MS Swaminathan – the architect of India’s Green Revolution which boosted crop yields and tackled the nation’s food scarcity issues in the 1970s – believes greater use of technology could help.

The professor at the Indian Statistical Institute in Bangalore pointed to an example she encountered in Amritsar a few years ago, where groundwater sensors were connected to mobile apps, enabling users to remotely control water pumps and conserve water.

“We must embrace new technologies, farming practices, and techniques to tackle the challenges brought by climate change,” she said.

The post What will it take to protect India’s angry farmers from climate threats? appeared first on Climate Home News.