Resources, SB58, SB58 Resources

Briefing: End Financing and Promotion of False Solutions

The world is experiencing an unprecedented climate crisis and the impacts of climate change are already being felt around the world, with devastating consequences for ecosystems, human health, and livelihoods. There are more frequent and severe weather events such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves. These events are causing widespread damage to infrastructure and economic activity, leading to food and water scarcity, displacement, and even loss of life. Nearly 3.5 billion people globally are climate vulnerable. Yet the world leaders have been more focused on pushing profit driven speculative technologies and technofixes.

Real, proven, community-centered, cost effective solutions to justly address the climate crisis are increasingly being swept aside in favor of industry-basked, risky, expensive, and harm-inducing false solutions. Climate justice begins with ending financing for and promotion of these false solutions.

This briefing provides simple talking points to help debunk and counter various false solutions.

Debunking False SolutionsDownload
Interventions, SB58

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at SB58 Opening Plenary Session

June 5, 2023

Mr Chair,

This statement is delivered by Gadir Lavadenz on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice.

We want to clearly express that NO COP overseen by a fossil fuel executive can be seen as a COP that will deliver what people and the planet are owed. The science is clear: there’s no more room for fossil fuels on a living planet. Coal, oil and gas are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for 86% of all carbon dioxide emissions. Real, rapid, and equitable emission cuts are needed in line with principles of justice and equity and that cannot be achieved through a hyper focus on dangerous distractions such as carbon markets, offsets, nature based solutions and incredibly dangerous and ungovernable geoengineering– all of which allow for continued pollution and disrespect historical responsibility. 

The world is losing faith in this process and we are running out of time. We do not only wish for fruitful discussion, but expect the delivery of concrete measures that include: establishing an Accountability Framework to end the ability of polluting interests to undermine climate action; a publicly funded and operationalized loss and damage finance facility; a pathway for a fast and equitable fossil fuels phase out; the urgent global collaboration needed to advance real solutions through article 6.8; a global stock take that is holistic and non-mitigation centric; a just transition work program that spurs the urgently needed transitions deeply rooted in equity;

A legitimate COP, is a Fossil Fuel Free COP. There is no climate justice, without human rights

Thank you very much

SB58

SB58 CLIMATE TALKS

TWN Bonn Climate News Update No. 1

5 June 2023
Published by Third World Network

WHAT TO EXPECT AT THE INTERSESSIONAL CLIMATE TALKS

Bonn, 5 June (Meena Raman+) – The 58th sessions of the UNFCCC’s subsidiary bodies (the Subsidiary Body for Implementation [SBI] and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice [SBSTA] are meeting in Bonn, Germany from 5 to 15 June, 2023.

The SB sessions will be presided over by the respective Chairs: Nabeel Munir (Pakistan) for the SBI and Harry Vreuls (Netherlands) for SBSTA.

The intersessional meeting of the subsidiary bodies (SBs) is key to advancing further work from the decisions adopted at the UNFCCC’s 27th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP 27) in Sharm-el-Sheikh last year, as they prepare to adopt new decisions at COP 28, to be held in Dubai, UAE later this year.

The Bonn talks are taking place against the backdrop of scorching heatwave across many parts of the world, including from Asia to Africa and Europe, in part, attributed to climate change and global heating.

According to the latest news from the  World Meteorological Organization (WMO), “global temperatures are likely to surge to record levels in the next five years, fuelled by heat-trapping greenhouse gases and a naturally occurring El Niño event”.  Said the WMO further, “there is a 66% likelihood that the annual average near-surface global temperature between 2023 and 2027 will be more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one year.  There is a 98% likelihood that at least one of the next five years, and the five-year period as a whole, will be the warmest on record.”

“A warming El Niño is expected to develop in the coming months and this will combine with human-induced climate change to push global temperatures into uncharted territory,” warned the WMO Secretary-General Prof. Petteri Taalas, adding further that “This will have far-reaching repercussions for health, food security, water management and the environment” and that governments need to be prepared for this.

Amid this grim alarm, the Bonn talks are also expected to be ‘heated’ on many fronts, especially along North-South lines. Some of the main issues to watch at the SBs are set out below.

Matters relating to loss and damage

Loss and Damage Fund and the Glasgow Dialogue

COP 27 delivered on what was the ‘litmus test’ for its success – consensus on the establishment of new funding arrangements and a fund on loss and damage to assist developing countries. Parties agreed that the fund’s mandate include a focus on addressing loss and damage. They also agreed to establish a Transitional Committee (TC) to make recommendations on how to operationalise both the new funding arrangements and the fund for the consideration and adoption by COP 28 later this year.

The TC has met twice already this year; the first meeting took place in Luxor, Egypt from 27-29 March, while the second meeting took place in Bonn, Germany from 25-27 May.  Discussions during the first TC meeting were not smooth, with differences of views across developing and developed country members on what should be discussed first, viz. the funding arrangements or the establishment of the fund. Developing country members wanted to focus on the operationalisation of the new fund for loss and damage, whereas developed country members wanted to focus on matters that would inform the funding arrangements and the fund, saying that more information was needed on the current landscape and institutions that are funding activities related to loss and damage. (See related update).

During the second meeting the TC, members had substantive exchange covering institutional arrangements, modalities, structure, governance and terms of reference for the fund; defining the elements of the new funding arrangements; identifying and expanding sources of funding; and ensuring coordination and complementarity with existing funding arrangements. Developing countries continued to express their preference of the fund over funding arrangements, and stressed that existing funding arrangements were far from enough and that there is very little explicit funding for loss and damage needs. Developed countries on the other hand, while covering all the four areas, stressed how the humanitarian assistance can be further improved (see related update).

In Bonn, the 2nd Glasgow Dialogue (GD) on loss and damage will be held, focusing on the operationalization of new funding arrangements and the fund, as well as on maximizing support from existing funding arrangements relevant for responding to economic and non-economic losses, slow onset events and extreme weather events. This Dialogue will inform the work of the TC.  The 1st GD took place last June.

Santiago Network on Loss and Damage (SNLD)

At CMA 4 (the 4th meeting of Parties to the Paris Agreement) last year, Parties agreed on the institutional arrangements to operationalise the SNLD in order to catalyse technical assistance to developing countries. The structure of the Santiago network and its terms of reference were agreed to. The decision was also that a selection process for the host of the network secretariat be launched in order to select the host by this year.

A call for proposals by the UNFCCC secretariat to host the Santiago network followed and the secretariat convened an evaluation panel for selecting the host on 5 April 2023 and supported the panel in preparing an evaluation report that includes a shortlist of proposals for the consideration of Parties. At SB 58, a draft decision is hoped for, with one proposal to host the network, which will then be adopted at COP 28.

According to the scenario note prepared by the Chairs of the SBs, a proposal from the Caribbean Development Bank and a joint proposal from the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and the UN Office for Project Services were received.

Just transition work programme

A new and significant outcome from COP 27 was the decision to establish a work programme on just transition on the pathways to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement. Parties also noted that the global transition to low emissions provides opportunities and challenges for sustainable economic development and poverty eradication and emphasised that just and equitable transition encompasses pathways that include energy, socioeconomic, workforce and other dimensions, all of which must be based on nationally defined development priorities and include social protection so as to mitigate potential impacts associated with the transition.

At the Bonn session, Parties are tasked to develop the work programme and as per the scenario note of the Chairs, discussions are expected to focus on pragmatic approaches and technical aspects, with the focus on preparing a draft decision text for consideration and adoption at CMA 5, as mandated.

Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme

At COP 27, Parties confirmed that the objective of the work programme “shall be to urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation in this critical decade in a manner that complements the global stocktake.”

Parties decided “that the work programme shall be operationalized through focused exchanges of views, information and ideas, noting that the outcomes of the work programme will be non-prescriptive, non-punitive, facilitative, respectful of national sovereignty and national circumstances, take into account the nationally determined nature of NDCs and will not impose new targets or goals.” (This was a grave concern to many developing countries).

It was also decided that implementation of the work programme will start immediately after CMA 4 and continue until its CMA 8 (2026), “with a view to adopting a decision on the continuation of the work programme at that session”.

As part of the work programme, CMA 4 decided that at least two global dialogues be held each year and the first of this was held under the SBs from June 3 to 4th in Bonn, followed on 5th June by what is called an “investment focused event”.

At the opening of the global dialogue on 3rd June, Ambassador Mohamed Nasr of Egypt, as the COP 27 Presidency, remarked that as Parties deliberate issues under the mitigation work programme with a focus on energy this time, “We also need to be reminded that substantial percentage of mitigation component of developing countries’ nationally developing countries (NDCs)s are conditional, which reflects how much impact this work programme can deliver in terms of supporting implementation and enhancing ambition.”

He also highlighted some of the key findings of latest reports including the International Energy Agency (IEA) which reports on energy that “Average growth rate in clean energy investments has reached 12% compared to 2% in 2015, but the investments were concentrated in China, the European Union (EU) and the United States (US), while the rest of developing economies has witnessed no or very limited increase in clean energy spending compared to 2015.”

He said further that the high cost of capital and rising borrowing costs threaten to undercut the economic attractiveness for investments in clean energy in developing countries, and that most of the positive trends in clean energy investments are leaving developing countries behind.  Nasr also stressed that “while we are talking about energy transition, there are 600 million Africans who have no access to energy.”  He added further that with these information and facts in mind, “the deliberations will provide the needed space to consider them and deliver real implementable recommendations.”

Separate from the mandated global dialogue above, Sweden on behalf of the EU has also proposed that the work programme be included in the provisional agendas of the SBs “in order to support the objectives of the mitigation work programme and robust annual decisions at the CMA, it’s necessary to include an agenda item at the SBs in June, in addition to the SB’s sessions at every COP.” Parties will be asked to consider this proposal by the EU when the agendas of the SBs are presented for adoption. If the proposal is accepted, a contact group or informal consultations on the matter will have to be established and for conclusions to be agreed to and presented to CMA 4 for adoption.

Global goal on adaptation (GGA)

Parties had last year initiated the development of a framework for the GGA which is to be undertaken “…through a structured approach under the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme in 2023, with a view to the framework being adopted at CMA 5” later this year. The framework is “to guide the achievement of the GGA and the review of overall progress in achieving, it with a view to reducing the increasing adverse impacts, risks and vulnerabilities associated with climate change, as well as enhance adaptation action and support.”

Developing countries had firmly called for the establishment of a framework on GGA as a substantive COP 27 outcome, proposing detailed elements in the form of dimensions; themes; indicators/metrics/targets; among others. The means of implementation – finance, technology transfer and capacity building – being one of the integral components of the dimensions of the framework.

Negotiations on the GGA will continue at the current Bonn session. In addition, a workshop on mainstreaming adaptation, including target-setting, methodologies and indicators will take place from 4th to 5th June in conjunction with the SBs.  This is the 6th workshop of 8 workshops being held under the GGA work programme since last year, with the hope and expectation that these workshops will result in an “ambitious outcome”, as per the Co-Chairs scenario note for the SBs.

Finance

Many of the finance issues will be negotiated under the COP and CMA to be held later this year.  Among the main issues are the following:

2nd review of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF)

Parties initiate the 2nd review of the SCF at this session. The SCF plays a very important role in assisting the COP and the CMA in exercising its functions in relation to the Financial Mechanism of the Convention and the Paris Agreement. This involves among the many roles viz.

  • Providing to the COP/CMA draft guidance for the operating entities of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention and the Paris Agreement (such as the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Find);
  • Preparing a biennial assessment, overview of climate finance flows, drawing on available sources of information, including national communications and biennial reports of both developed and developing country Parties etc.

It is hoped that Parties will be able to arrive at conclusions at the SBI session with elements of a draft decision that will be adopted at COP 28.

New Collective Quantified Goal on Finance

In conjunction with the SBs, the sixth technical expert dialogue (TED 6) under the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) will be convened, and will focus on the themes “quantum” and “mobilization and provision of financial sources”.

The decision from CMA last year acknowledged “the need to significantly strengthen the ad hoc work programme on the NCQG in the light of the urgency of scaling up climate action with a view to achieving meaningful outcomes…and setting the NCQG in 2024 taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries.”

The objective of TED 6 is to “discuss and identify options for ways to determine the quantum of the NCQG…and options on the mobilization and provision of financial sources.”

Developing countries have stressed the need to have a discussion on the quantum of the NCQG for some time now. However, developed countries have traditionally refused to engage in discussions on the quantum of the goal, in attempts to push this to discussions next year. This was among the key contentious issues in Sharm el-Sheikh (see related update). TED 6 will offer Parties an opportunity to go in-depth into the issue of quantum for the goal.

Workshop on Article 9.5

The second biennial in-session workshop on information to be provided by Parties in accordance with Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement will also be convened at this current SB session. (Article 9.5 provides for developed countries to biennially communicate indicative quantitative and qualitative information on the projected levels of public financial resources to be provided to developing countries.)

The objective of the workshop scheduled to take place on 6 June is to “share views, experiences and lessons learned on information contained in the second biennial communications”; and to “present and discuss the overall state of predictability and clarity of information on financial support to developing countries for the implementation of the Paris Agreement…”.

According to the compilation and synthesis report on the second biennial communications on Article 9.5 by the Secretariat, 34 Parties have submitted their communications. This includes Australia, Canada, Czech Republic and the EU, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the US.

Developing countries are expected to hold the developed countries to account in terms of the improvements requested in relation to their first biennial communications. Improvements which were sought included the following: “The indicative projections of climate finance for developing countries and specific plans for scaling up the provision and mobilization of climate finance; the information provided on projected levels of climate finance and lack of detail on themes, various channels and instruments across the biennial communications; and the information on the shares of projected climate finance for adaptation and mitigation, and on plans for addressing the balance between the two”.

Improvements were also sought “on enhancing the quality and granularity of information on programmes, including projected levels, channels and instruments, particularly on climate finance for the least developed countries and small island developing States, and on relevant methodologies and assumptions”.

However, the communication from the US reveals as follows:  “Given that these channels are demand-based, coupled with the fact that US bilateral channels depend on annual appropriations from Congress, it is not possible for the US to forecast or project future climate finance levels or quantitative ex-ante information.” The communication by the US also does not make any commitments and only reiterates their “intentional” announcements at best.

The Global Stocktake

The first global stocktake (GST) scheduled to take place at COP 28 in Dubai is among the most awaited outcomes in 2023. The GST is to assess the collective progress of Parties in the implementation of the Paris Agreement goals.

At the current SB session, the technical assessment component of the first GST will conclude, with the convening of the third and last meeting of the technical dialogue, with the corresponding summary report to be published in July this year and an overall synthesis of the summary reports to be published later in September.

At the current session, four roundtables will be convened as part of the technical assessment. These will be on mitigation, including response measures; adaptation, including loss and damage; means of implementation and support: finance, technology and capacity building; and integrated and holistic approaches. Discussions are expected to focus on “what next” for each of the roundtables. In these roundtables, Parties are expected to address and develop further the emerging messages (in the four areas corresponding to the roundtable topics) in the second summary report by the technical dialogue co-facilitators.

A joint contact group will also be convened where Parties are expected to discuss the structure and format of GST outcomes for COP 28, and potential follow up processes, if any. The high-level committee, comprising the Egyptian and the UAE Presidencies along with the SB Chairs, are expected to provide an update, during SB 58 on progress in planning their high-level events.

Several of these areas are likely to see divergences, with developing countries calling for the GST to be based on equity and best available science and the importance of taking stock of collective action and not transferring the burden of developed countries’ inaction onto developing countries via the GST.

Article 6: market and non-market approaches

As regards Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement (related to the use of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes [ITMOS] towards the implementation NDCs), CMA4 requested the SBSTA to work on a number of topics including the technical expert review and elements related to reporting.

On Article 6.4 (which is a mechanism to contribute to the mitigation of emissions and support sustainable development), SBSTA has been tasked with further work, including on responsibilities of the Supervisory Body (of the mechanism) and of Parties that host activities under the Article in order for such host Parties to elaborate on and apply national arrangements for the mechanism. The SBSTA was also tasked to continue its work in developing recommendations relating to the rules and procedures for the mechanism, including whether Article 6.4 activities could include emissions avoidance and conservation enhancement activities.

On Article 6.8 (non-market approaches), the Glasgow Committee on Non-market Approaches (GCMNA) agreed to will move fully into implementing the work programme activities for 2023-2026 in two phases. At SBSTA 58, the GCMNA will hold its third meeting in a contact group format on 5 June 2023, where the secretariat will provide update on the status of the development and operationalisation of the UNFCCC web-based platform for NMAs. There will also be an in-session workshop on 9 June 2023 to exchange information, best practices, lessons learned from identifying, developing and implementing NMAs, including the support needed in terms of financial, technology and capacity building.

+ With inputs from Hilary Kung.

Press Releases

IPCC Report Needs to be Wake Up Call for World Leaders: No More False Solutions

*Urgent need for system change through just and equitable transition*

18 March 2023

Interlaken, Switzerland

Nearly 200 countries are currently deliberating on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment cycle. The past six reports by the IPCC have forced a reckoning on the world and its leaders for immediate and transformative action to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urgently set the world on path for just and equitable transition. The Synthesis Report and IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ is a crucial document set to impact this year’s global stocktake of the 2015 Paris Agreement that set the life saving limit of keeping rise in global temperatures well below 1.5 degrees.

The past IPCC reports have confirmed that the impacts of climate change are already being felt around the world, with devastating consequences for ecosystems, human health, and livelihoods. The world is already experiencing more frequent and severe weather events such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves. These events are causing widespread damage to infrastructure and economic activity, leading to food and water scarcity, displacement, and even loss of life. Nearly 3.5 billion people globally are climate vulnerable. Climate justice and human rights movements, scientists and academicians around the world have been advocating for climate action for decades, yet the world leaders have been more focused on listening to fossil fuel lobbyists or pushing profit driven speculative technologies and technofixes. As the world continues to head on to a path of devastation, urgent, real, and decisive action is the only solution to achieve a just and equitable transition.

Representatives of Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice share their demands and expectations from the Synthesis Report for Sixth Assessment Cycle and the Summary for Policymakers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development

“The very low  ambition and even lower delivery of commitments to climate action is evident of the great injustice at the heart of the climate crisis. We are being led down a path of extended life for fossil fuel systems with the push for Gas as transition fuel, and Carbon Capture and Storage, Hydrogen and Ammonia technologies  as  part of solutions. We reject these false solutions being peddled by wealthy countries. These big polluters have an obligation to deliver a rapid, just and equitable transition directly to 100% renewable energy and provide  adequate non-debt creating climate finance for the Global South as part of  reparations for climate debt.”

Nathalie Rengifo Alvarez, Latin America Climate Campaign Director, Corporate Accountability 

“Just look at the full report. The science and urgency will be unequivocal and deeply disturbing. It will paint a clear picture of what is needed. A swift and just transition to renewables. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. Emissions need to be rapidly cut to Real Zero. But the summary for policymakers will likely, as usual, read as though we are living on another planet. The fingerprints of major polluters will be all over the recommendations for action. They’ll read as though we haven’t already crossed devastating and deadly thresholds for life on Earth. This disconnect is intolerable and needs to be remedied by an immediate reset of the system that brought us here and by kicking big polluters out of climate policy.”

Meena Raman, Head of Programmes, Third World Network

“It is vital that the IPCC Synthesis Report (SR) makes clear that the global emissions pathways are based on models whose assumptions fail to make clear that inequities between the Global North and South, intra-regional income distribution and the need for environmental and climate justice have not been taken into account. Hence, the SR in this regard must make clear that these global modelled emissions pathways have to be assessed with the careful recognition of the underlying assumptions.

Policy-makers must not be misled into believing that these emission pathways are fact-based or are policy-prescriptive, when they are really predictions by climate modellers whose assumptions are currently unknown.  Accepting them without question risks locking in further inequities between the rich and poor, thus exacerbating climate injustice.

The IPCC data is clear that the developed countries have a historical responsibility for their high emissions since the industrial revolution and have overused the carbon budget required to limit temperature rise to 1.5-degree C. They have and continue to undermine equitable access to the carbon budget. Hence, developed countries should own up to this historical responsibility and deliver on the large amount of climate finance needed to developing countries to enable the just transition pathway to a low carbon future, undertake adaptation actions and address loss and damage, as recognised in the IPCC underlying working group reports.

Developed countries must not be allowed to water-down their lack of fulfillment of the finance delivery in the SR or to shift the responsibilities onto developing countries.”

Susann Scherbarth, Head of Climate Justice, Friends of the Earth Germany/ BUND

“The scientific community is unanimous: emissions must be drastically reduced, even if the 1.5 limit will be exceeded. When it comes to limiting devastating consequences for people, nature and biodiversity, every tenth of a degree counts. The first priority is to reduce emissions, not to extract CO2 after it has already been emitted. The current CCS debate in Germany shows clearly the opposite: the German government is relying on technical false solutions that are dangerous, expensive, and unproven on the scale needed. Waiting and hoping for magic must not be a free pass for doing anything or only little in the here and now as we see in Germany’s mobility and housing sector in particular.

We need politics that treat the climate crisis like a crisis and end inequalities. The status quo of infinite growth in Germany and other rich nations cannot be the future. The end of fossil fuels must come now and our energy consumption must go down drastically while relying on renewable energies and energy efficiency.”

Hemantha Withanage, chair of Friends of the Earth International

“In my country, Sri Lanka, the impacts of climate change are being felt now. We have no time to chase fairy tales of sucking carbon out of the air later, we need to reduce carbon emissions now. We hope that the forthcoming IPCC report will rightly call for a rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, and the need for finance to make it happen. Overshooting the 1.5 degree guardrail will lead to climate chaos, and we fear that reliance on carbon removal technologies will only embolden big polluters to keep emitting as usual.”

David Williams, Director International Climate Justice Program, Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung 

“The Synthesis Report of the IPCC, the world’s foremost body on climate change science, is a culmination of almost a decade’s worth of climate observation and modelling. Damningly, according to current projections, we are not only on track to reach 3°C global warming by 2100, but will rocket through to even more dystopian levels, severely constraining living conditions of future generations. Currently, up to 3.6 billion people live in situations of vulnerability, in which fatalities from floods, droughts, and storms are 15 times more likely than in non-vulnerable contexts. As if that weren’t already grave enough, the frequency and intensity of floods, droughts, storms, and other extreme weather events is increasing at a higher pace than initially projected. 

In spite of this, fossil fuel companies are achieving record-breaking profits. They are propped up by big banks and neoliberal governments protecting private capital at the expense of public security. Never has the reality been so stark that the climate crisis is a question of power, of western supremacy, and of neocolonial economic structures upon which the wealth of industrialized nations is built.”

Souparna Lahiri, Senior Climate and Biodiversity Policy Advisor, Global Forest Coalition

“The AR6 Synthesis Report of the IPCC report is not likely to spring any surprise. It may paint a more grimmer climate crisis and provide more mitigation options through model pathways. Where IPCC is continuously failing is a response of the scientific community to the false and mitigation- heavy climate solutions that drown out real solutions and climate resilient actions of the frontline communities and unequal climate finance flows to develop such false solutions including large scale CDRs. The drivers of such false solutions, the corporates and multinationals, involved in continuing fossil fuel extraction and unsustainable industrial agriculture and agri-business, are being let off the radar. The impacts of such false solutions, the corporate capture of climate policy making, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, women and local communities and their leading role in transformative actions on the ground, are consistently ignored. Climate modeling alone cannot contribute to the much required transformation without responding and recognising the intersectionality of the climate crisis and the rights and role of the frontline communities.”

Kelly Dent , Global Programme Director- External Engagement, World Animal Protection, Global

“Food systems have long been ignored in the commitment to keep the climate below 1.5 degrees – but we can longer turn a blind eye to science. The evidence is clear. Industrial animal agriculture is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, pollution, and the emergence of zoonotic and AMR superbug diseases, let alone cruel to animals. Governments must now act. They must acknowledge the significant impact factory farming has on our people, animals and planet – and they must take the action required to reign in these hitherto silent climate culprits.”

Stephanie Cabovianco, Climate Save Movement

“The transition to a plant-based food system is not only necessary for our health and the well-being of animals, but also for the survival of our planet in the face of the climate and ecological emergency. The Sixth Assessment Report by the IPCC highlights the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from food systems, which are responsible for up to 37% of global emissions. A shift towards plant-based diets can significantly reduce these emissions, while also conserving biodiversity, reducing deforestation, and improving land and water use efficiency. It’s time for us to recognize the power of food production and consumption and take action for a sustainable present.”

Shefali Sharma, Director of Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)’s European office

“The summary of IPCC’s findings about the dramatic need to cut emissions should be a wake up call to regulate all major polluters. For the food and farm sector, big livestock, agrochemical and major grain processing companies are the primary culprits of agricultural emissions. Together, they have driven large scale deforestation, polluted our lands and rivers and still continue to operate with impunity. The IPCC emphasizes the urgency to reduce highly potent GHGs methane and nitrous oxide, where large-scale agriculture is a major source. Governments need to regulate big ag’s emissions, and support a just transition for farming that restores ecosystems and treats people in the food system with dignity.”

Nick Buxton, Transnational Institute

‘The IPCC’s report makes clear that any solutions to protect those most impacted by the climate crisis have to be rooted in justice. Yet the richest nations are spending 30 times as much on the military as they do on climate finance, and are yet to even commit proper funds for the loss and damage caused by the climate crisis. We need to move from a focus on managing the consequences of climate change to addressing its root causes. This requires reducing military and security budgets so we can massively increase the financial support to communities and countries so they can reduce emissions and prepare ways to adapt and respond justly to climate impacts.’

Deborah Burton, TPNS/Transform Defence Project

“As we digest the findings of this final synthesis report we can be sure of one thing: that it will be missing the military emissions that governments are choosing not to report.  Yet military emissions account to 5.5% of global emissions, more than civilian aviation and shipping combined. This does not include emissions from conflicts, nor attendant destruction and reconstruction. As we look forward to the AR7 Cycle, civil society is calling for military emissions to be on the IPCC agenda in the hope that we can move towards a Special Report on the Military and Climate Change.  The annual $2 trillion spent on the world’s fossil-fuel-reliant militaries is fuelling climate change, robbing funds from climate finance and failing to deliver human safety in this time of climate emergency.”

Ellie Kinney, the Military Emissions Gap – The Conflict and Environment Observatory

“The findings of the latest IPCC report offer a concerning glimpse into our future. At this stage of the climate crisis, no sector can be exempt from climate action. Militaries are huge energy users whose greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for an estimated 5.5% of global emissions. Initial estimates into the environmental impact of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine suggest that the conflict is responsible for additional emissions equivalent to that of a country like the Netherlands over the same time period. However, because reporting military emissions to the UNFCCC is voluntary, data is often absent or incomplete, leaving a potentially huge blind spot in our climate action. The IPCC has the opportunity to highlight the scale of the military emissions gap to Governments and policy-makers and this should be a priority for AR7. We would welcome an IPCC Special Report on the military and climate change, but at the very least military emissions should be acknowledged within the AR7 cycle.”

Quotes in other languages

Stephanie Cabovianco, Climate Save Movement

[ESPAÑOL] “La transición a un sistema alimentario basado en plantas no solo es necesaria para nuestra salud y el bienestar de los animales, sino también para la supervivencia de nuestro planeta frente a la emergencia climática y ecológica. El Sexto Informe de Evaluación del IPCC destaca la necesidad urgente de reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero de los sistemas alimentarios, que son responsables de hasta el 37 % de las emisiones globales. Un cambio hacia dietas basadas en plantas puede reducir significativamente estas emisiones, al tiempo que conserva la biodiversidad, reduce la deforestación y mejora la tierra y la eficiencia en el uso del agua. Es hora de que reconozcamos el poder de la producción y el consumo de alimentos y tomemos medidas para un presente sostenible”.

****

Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice is a network of over 200 networks and organizations working globally, regionally, and locally on climate justice. Collectively we represent millions of climate activists on the ground.


Our members are available for comments and interviews in different languages. Please contact Rachitaa at [email protected] to arrange interviews.

Press Releases

IPCC Report Needs to be Wake Up Call for World Leaders: No More False Solutions

*Urgent need for system change through just and equitable transition*

18 March 2023

Interlaken, Switzerland

Nearly 200 countries are currently deliberating on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Synthesis Report for the Sixth Assessment cycle. The past six reports by the IPCC have forced a reckoning on the world and its leaders for immediate and transformative action to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and urgently set the world on path for just and equitable transition.

The Synthesis Report and IPCC’s ‘Summary for Policymakers’ is a crucial document set to impact this year’s global stocktake of the 2015 Paris Agreement that set the life-saving limit of keeping global temperature rise well below 1.5 degrees. It is time for rich countries to own their historical responsibility for the high emissions that have led the world to the current crisis.

“Just look at the full report. The science and urgency will be unequivocal and deeply disturbing. It will paint a clear picture of what is needed – a swift and just transition to renewables. Fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. Emissions need to be rapidly cut to Real Zero. But the summary for policymakers will likely, as usual, read as though we are living on another planet. The fingerprints of major polluters will be all over the recommendations for action,” said Nathalie Rengifo Alvarez, Latin America Climate Campaign Director, Corporate Accountability, a member organization of Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ).

Climate justice and human rights movements, scientists and academicians around the world have been advocating for climate action for decades, yet the world leaders have been more focussed on listening to fossil fuel lobbyists or pushing profit driven speculative technologies and technofixes.

Hemantha Withanage, chair of Friends of the Earth International, a DCJ member organization, said, “In my country, Sri Lanka, the impacts of climate change are being felt now. We have no time to chase fairy tales of sucking carbon out of the air later, we need to reduce carbon emissions now. We hope that the forthcoming IPCC report will rightly call for a rapid and equitable transition away from fossil fuels, and the need for finance to make it happen. Overshooting the 1.5 degree guardrail will lead to climate chaos, and we fear that reliance on carbon removal technologies will only embolden big polluters to keep emitting as usual.”

“The very low ambition and even lower delivery of commitments to climate action is evident of the great injustice at the heart of the climate crisis. We are being led down a path of extended life for fossil fuel systems with the push for Gas as transition fuel, and Carbon Capture and Storage, Hydrogen and Ammonia technologies as part of solutions. We reject these false solutions being peddled by wealthy countries,” shared Lidy Nacpil, Coordinator, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD), a DCJ member organization.

The past IPCC reports have confirmed that the impacts of climate change are already being felt 

around the world, with devastating consequences for ecosystems, human health, and livelihoods. The world is already experiencing more frequent and severe weather events such as floods, droughts, and heatwaves.These events are causing widespread damage to infrastructure and economic activity, leading to food and water scarcity, displacement, and even loss of life, mostly in the Global South. Nearly 3.5 billion people globally are already vulnerable to climate change and more are likely to be pushed into this situation.

“The IPCC data is clear that the developed countries have a historical responsibility for their high emissions since the industrial revolution and have overused the carbon budget required to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. They have and continue to undermine equitable access to the carbon budget. Hence, developed countries should own up to this historical responsibility and deliver on the large amount of climate finance needed to developing countries to enable the just transition pathway to a low carbon future, undertake adaptation actions and address loss and damage, as recognised in the IPCC underlying working group reports,” said Meena Raman, Head of Programmes, Third World Network (TWN), a DCJ member organization.

As the world continues to head on to a path of devastation, urgent, real, and decisive action is the only solution to achieve a just and equitable transition. Lidy Nacpil added, “Big polluters have an obligation to deliver a rapid, just and equitable transition directly to 100% renewable energy and provide adequate non-debt creating climate finance for the Global South as part of  reparations for climate debt.” Meena Raman emphasized that developed countries must not be allowed to water-down their lack of fulfillment of the finance delivery in the Synthesis Report or to shift the responsibilities onto developing countries. “The disconnect is intolerable and needs to be remedied by an immediate reset of the system that brought us here and by kicking big polluters out of climate policy,” Nathalie Rengifo Alvarez.

ENDS

About Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice (DCJ)

Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice is a network of over 200 networks and organizations working globally, regionally, and locally on climate justice. Collectively we represent millions of climate activists on the ground.

Our members are available for comments and interviews in different languages. Please contact Rachitaa at [email protected] to arrange interviews.

Website | Facebook | Twitter

Additional Quotes from members of Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice

CBD COP15, Español

¿Un nuevo Marco Global de Biodiversidad o un Fraude Global de Biodiversidad?

La 15ª reunión de la Conferencia de las Partes del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB) se llevó a cabo en diciembre de 2022 en Montreal, Canadá, junto con las reuniones del Protocolo de Cartagena y el Protocolo de Nagoya del CDB.

El contexto

La naturaleza es esencial para la existencia humana y sustenta la calidad del aire, el agua dulce y los suelos de los que depende la humanidad; distribuye agua dulce, regula el clima, proporciona polinización y control de plagas y reduce el impacto de los desastres socio-naturales. Nuestros medios de subsistencia también dependen de la naturaleza, ya que más de 2000 millones de personas dependen de la leña para satisfacer sus necesidades energéticas primarias; alrededor de 4000 millones de personas dependen principalmente de medicamentos naturales para el cuidado de su salud y alrededor del 70 % de los medicamentos utilizados para el cáncer son productos naturales o sintéticos inspirados en la naturaleza. Más del 75 % de los tipos de cultivos alimentarios mundiales dependen de la polinización animal y los ecosistemas marinos y terrestres son los únicos sumideros de las emisiones antropogénicas de carbono, con un secuestro bruto de 5,6 gigatoneladas de carbono al año (el equivalente al 60 % de las emisiones antropogénicas mundiales).

Los humanos somos parte de la naturaleza, pero la vemos como algo separado de nosotros que puede ser usado y destruido a nuestra discreción. Según el Informe de Evaluación Global de IPBES sobre Biodiversidad y Servicios Ecosistémicos, alrededor de 1 millón de especies de animales y plantas desaparecerán de la tierra y muchas en las próximas décadas; en gran parte de los trópicos altamente biodiversos, se perdieron 32 millones de hectáreas de bosques primarios o en recuperación entre 2010 y 2015; y aproximadamente la mitad de la cobertura de coral vivo en los arrecifes de coral se ha perdido desde la década de 1870, con pérdidas aceleradas en las últimas décadas debido al cambio climático que exacerba otros factores.

El informe IPBES también identifica claramente los impulsores directos del cambio en la naturaleza que son: (1) cambios en el uso de la tierra y el mar, (2) explotación directa de organismos, (3) cambio climático, (4) contaminación y (5) especies exóticas invasoras; y también destaca que desde 1980, las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero se han duplicado, elevando las temperaturas globales promedio en al menos 0,7 grados centígrados y se espera que sus impactos aumenten en las próximas décadas, en algunos casos superando el impacto del cambio en el uso de la tierra y el mar y otros factores.

Para hacer frente a la crisis de biodiversidad del mundo, se estableció el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CDB) con la misión de lograr una vida en armonía con la naturaleza para el año 2050 a través de tres objetivos centrales; conservación de la biodiversidad, uso sostenible y distribución equitativa de los beneficios derivados del uso de los recursos genéticos. Para lograr la misión y los objetivos, en 2010, las partes del CDB adoptaron un plan de trabajo de 10 años que, en esencia, contenía 20 metas, conocidas como Metas de Aichi, que abordaban diferentes temas, entre ellos: la integración y el respeto del conocimiento tradicional (T18), el aumento de los recursos financieros de todas las fuentes (T20), la reforma de los incentivos (T3) y la producción y el consumo sostenibles.

Al final del plan de trabajo, estaba claro que los objetivos de Aichi no se cumplirían y que cualquier plan posterior tenía que centrarse principalmente en la implementación. Es así como se establece un grupo de trabajo en el marco del CDB 1 con el objetivo de conducir el proceso que conduciría a la adopción de un Marco Global de Biodiversidad post 2020 en la COP 15 del CDB en 2019. Pero la pandemia del COVID-19 golpeó al mundo y la CBD COP 15 no sólo se pospuso hasta diciembre de 2022, sino que también cambió su sede de Kunming, China, a Montreal, Canadá. A lo largo de los años, el grupo de trabajo celebró 5 reuniones en total, tanto en línea como en persona.

¿Cuáles son los resultados después de años de negociación?

El largo y lento proceso de negociación produjo lo que ahora se llama el Marco Global de Biodiversidad de Kunming-Montreal [Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)] que, en esencia, contiene lo siguiente:

Una teoría del cambio que reconoce la necesidad urgente de una acción política para lograr el desarrollo sostenible, de modo que se reduzcan y/o reviertan los factores del cambio no deseado que han exacerbado la pérdida de biodiversidad.

Una visión que es la misma que figura en el texto de la Convención de vivir en armonía con la naturaleza para 2050 y una misión para tomar medidas urgentes para detener y revertir la pérdida de biodiversidad para poner a la naturaleza en el camino de la recuperación. Impulsado especialmente por grandes grupos conservacionistas, el concepto de ‘naturaleza positiva‘ cuestionado por la sociedad civil no fue incluido en la misión.

Un conjunto de metas que es básicamente un texto alineado con los tres objetivos de la Convención, pero con la inclusión de la meta D sobre los medios adecuados de implementación, incluidos los recursos financieros, la creación de capacidades, la cooperación técnica y científica, y el acceso y la transferencia de tecnología, para también cerrar progresivamente la brecha financiera de la biodiversidad de 700 mil millones de dólares por año.

La sección H del marco contiene los Objetivos Kunming-Montreal 2030 que comprenden un conjunto de 23 objetivos. Si bien todos están conectados, cada uno aborda un tema en particular, algunos representan un paso adelante, otros un paso atrás de las Metas de Aichi y otros son una simple referencia al texto de la Convención.

La meta 17, por ejemplo, sólo tiene como objetivo fortalecer la capacidad para implementar el artículo 8(g) 2 del Convenio que habla sobre la regulación, gestión y control de riesgos asociados con el uso y liberación de organismos vivos modificados. No representa nada nuevo para la Convención.

La meta 3 relacionada con la conservación basada en áreas disfrutó de mucha atención en detrimento de todas las demás metas, incluidas aquellas que abordan los factores impulsores de la pérdida de biodiversidad. Promovida principalmente por grandes grupos conservacionistas, la propuesta de aumentar las áreas protegidas en al menos un 30% 3 fue cuestionada por organizaciones de la sociedad civil y grupos de pueblos indígenas por diferentes razones, incluidas las asociaciones para “fortalecer la conservación” y sus impactos negativos principalmente en los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales, quienes han sido criminalizados y desplazados de sus tierras ancestrales durante décadas en la búsqueda de un enfoque colonial y estrecho de conservación a través de Áreas Protegidas. La Meta adoptada sí incluye este aspecto cuantitativo, pero también incluye importantes referencias a los pueblos indígenas y el reconocimiento y respeto de sus derechos, incluidos los derechos sobre sus territorios tradicionales.

La meta 15 no fue muy popular y probablemente esa sea la razón de su lenguaje débil. En lugar de apuntar a regulaciones más estrictas para el sector privado, en particular las empresas transnacionales, sólo pide a los gobiernos que tomen medidas legales, administrativas o políticas para alentar y permitir el negocio y, en particular, para garantizar a las empresas e instituciones financieras grandes y transnacionales: Monitorear, evaluar y divulgar de manera transparente y regular sus riesgos, dependencias e impactos sobre la biodiversidad; Proporcionar la información necesaria a los consumidores para promover patrones de consumo sostenibles; e Informar sobre el cumplimiento de las normas y medidas de acceso y participación en los beneficios, según corresponda.

La meta 22 es algo que vale la pena destacar como positivo, ya que dice: Garantizar la representación y participación plena, equitativa, inclusiva, efectiva y con perspectiva de género en la toma de decisiones, y el acceso a la justicia y a la información relacionada con la biodiversidad por parte de los pueblos indígenas y las comunidades locales, respetando sus culturas y sus derechos sobre las tierras, los territorios, los recursos y los conocimientos tradicionales, así como por las mujeres y las niñas, los niños y los jóvenes y las personas con discapacidad, y garantizar la plena protección de los defensores de los derechos humanos ambientales.

La meta 23 también es una victoria gracias a y para la sociedad civil y dice: Garantizar la igualdad de género en la implementación del marco a través de un enfoque sensible al género donde todas las mujeres y niñas tengan las mismas oportunidades y capacidad para contribuir a los tres objetivos de la Convención, incluyendo el reconocimiento de su igualdad de derechos y acceso a la tierra y los recursos naturales y su participación y liderazgo plenos, equitativos, significativos e informados en todos los niveles de acción, compromiso, política y toma de decisiones relacionadas con la biodiversidad.

La relación entre el cambio climático y la biodiversidad

Según IPBES, el cambio climático ya está impactando a la naturaleza desde el nivel de los ecosistemas hasta el de la genética, siendo los ecosistemas marinos y terrestres los únicos sumideros de las emisiones antropogénicas de carbono, con un secuestro bruto de 5,6 gigatoneladas de carbono por año (el equivalente a unas 60% de las emisiones antropogénicas globales).

Desde una perspectiva de justicia climática y ecológica, los vínculos e interdependencias entre la atmósfera y la biósfera son evidentes, así como las causas estructurales comunes de la crisis del clima y la biodiversidad. Sin embargo, para los países desarrollados y los intereses conservacionistas y privados específicos, parece que la única conexión es cómo incluir la contribución de la biodiversidad a la mitigación en un sistema basado en el mercado a través de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza (SBN).

La Decisión 23 de la COP sobre cambio climático y biodiversidad perdió su objetivo real a lo largo de los años y fue simplificada en exceso por los países desarrollados que redujeron la conexión entre el cambio climático y la biodiversidad al uso del término “soluciones basadas en la naturaleza”. Después de dar vueltas y sin concesiones del norte global en incluir siquiera una referencia al principio CBDR, esta decisión no pudo alcanzar ninguna salida y fue enviada de vuelta al Órgano Subsidiario de Asesoramiento Técnico y Tecnológico (SBSTTA) de la Convención para más discusión.

La meta 8 del Marco adoptado se centra en minimizar el impacto del cambio climático y la acidificación de los océanos en la biodiversidad y aumentar su resiliencia a través de acciones de mitigación, adaptación y reducción del riesgo de desastres, incluso a través de soluciones basadas en la naturaleza y/o enfoques basados en los ecosistemas. La concesión final para tratar con SBN fue colocarlo junto con los enfoques basados en ecosistemas, que es un término bien definido en el CDB.

La meta11 también se resolvió juntando los enfoques basados en SBN y ecosistemas como una forma de restaurar, mantener y mejorar las contribuciones de la naturaleza a las personas, como la regulación del aire, el agua y el clima, la salud del suelo, la polinización y la reducción del riesgo de enfermedades, así como protección contra peligros y desastres naturales.

Otros elementos importantes

A través de la decisión sobre movilización de recursos (CBD/COP/15/L.29), la COP15 adoptó una Estrategia de Movilización de Recursos, reconociendo que implica una fase inmediata (2023-24) y una fase de mediano plazo (2025-30). También reconoce la urgencia de aumentar el financiamiento internacional para la biodiversidad y establecer un Fondo GBF dedicado y accesible en 2023 para movilizar y desembolsar rápidamente recursos nuevos y adicionales de todas las fuentes, de acuerdo con la ambición del GBF. Solicita al GEF (Global Environmental Facility):

  • establecer en 2023 un fondo fiduciario especial para apoyar la implementación de GBF para complementar el apoyo existente y ampliar el financiamiento para garantizar su implementación oportuna;
  • preparar una decisión para ser considerada por el Consejo del GEF sobre la aprobación del Fondo GBF, con su propio órgano rector equitativo, que se dedicará exclusivamente a apoyar la implementación de las metas y objetivos del GBF;
  • promover los arreglos institucionales y de gobernanza necesarios para permitir que el Fondo GBF reciba, además de la asistencia oficial para el desarrollo, financiamiento de todas las fuentes; y
  • diseñar e implementar un ciclo de proyecto con un proceso de solicitud y aprobación simple y efectivo, proporcionando un acceso fácil y eficiente a los recursos del Fondo GBF.

Observaciones finales

  • El nuevo Marco no está a la altura de las altas expectativas y el arduo trabajo realizado durante años de negociación. No aborda los verdaderos factores que determinan la pérdida de biodiversidad e incluso no aborda las causas estructurales de la destrucción de la biodiversidad. La crisis medioambiental a la que nos enfrentamos responde a problemas estructurales comunes de nuestra sociedad y de nuestro modelo económico que antepone el lucro a cualquier otra consideración. A la biodiversidad no se le atribuye derechos, y por el contrario es algo de lo que podemos beneficiarnos y podemos explotar y destruir. Este viejo enfoque antropocéntrico y capitalista ya no es compatible con la sola existencia de millones de especies en el mundo ni con la vida y el sustento de los seres humanos.
  • La formulación de las nuevas metas no es una mejora significativa en comparación con las metas de Aichi, pero ha habido avances en asuntos específicos relacionados con su implementación, incluido el trabajo en indicadores. Mientras existen vínculos explícitos con el cambio climático como la Meta 8, todas las demás metas abordan asuntos importantes para proteger la biodiversidad que, como resultado, tendrán contribuciones positivas en la lucha contra el cambio climático.
  • La plena implementación del Marco también está vinculada al progreso de la decisión sobre la movilización de recursos y el mecanismo financiero del CDB. Los países desarrollados se han creado una reputación basada en hechos de incumplimiento de sus obligaciones en materia de mitigación y financiación en el marco de la CMNUCC. El CDB no puede recorrer el mismo camino pedregoso a pesar de los intentos de los países ricos de descuidar sus responsabilidades históricas en la destrucción de la biodiversidad.
  • Los resultados de la COP 15 se verían muy diferentes sin la participación activa de la sociedad civil que tiene un papel en la configuración del Marco Global de Biodiversidad Kunming-Montreal adoptado. La CMNUCC y el CDB no son la respuesta al mundo y necesitamos crear espacios fuertes y alternativos, pero el proceso multilateral sigue siendo relevante y un espacio estratégico importante para trabajar. Sin el involucramiento de la sociedad civil no hubiera sido posible la inclusión y reconocimiento de los derechos, en particular de los pueblos indígenas y comunidades locales, y la adopción de las metas 22 y 23.
  • Por otro lado, el papel de los grandes grupos conservacionistas y los intereses privados es evidente y también tiene un impacto en los resultados de la COP 15. La promoción de términos y esquemas como Nature Positive y Nature-based solutions tiene, por decir lo menos, contribuciones adicionales a la biodiversidad cuestionables y distraen la atención de los verdaderos factores de la pérdida de biodiversidad.
  • El CDB y su nuevo Marco no son la solución a la crisis de la biodiversidad, pero si se implementan por completo, los nuevos objetivos tienen el potencial de contribuir a un cambio en la trayectoria de la pérdida de biodiversidad. Los gobiernos por sí solos no lo harán posible porque los intereses económicos siguen estando por encima de todos los demás. El papel de la sociedad civil para velar por la implementación en los territorios junto con la responsabilización de los gobiernos por la destrucción de la biodiversidad será crucial en los próximos años. Como sociedad, necesitamos trabajar urgentemente en modelos claros de desarrollo alternativo a través de transiciones justas que puedan hacerse efectivas en el corto plazo. No hay tiempo que perder. Necesitamos crear nuevas realidades que dejen atrás las antiguas.

1Open Ended Working Group on Post 2020 

2(g) Establecer o mantener medios para regular, gestionar o controlar los riesgos asociados con el uso y la liberación de organismos vivos modificados resultantes de la biotecnología que probablemente tengan impactos ambientales adversos que podrían afectar la conservación y el uso sostenible de la diversidad biológica, teniendo también en cuenta los riesgos para la salud humana

  3Su antecesora, la meta 17 de Aichi, apuntaba a que el 17 % de las tierras terrestres y el 10 % de las áreas costeras y marinas se conserven a través de áreas protegidas y otras medidas eficaces de conservación basadas en áreas 

CBD COP15

A new Global Biodiversity Framework or a Global Biodiversity Fraud?

The 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) took place in December 2022 in Montreal, Canada together with the meetings for the Cartagena Protocol and the Nagoya Protocol of the CBD. 

The context

Nature is essential for human existence and it sustains the quality of the air, fresh water and soils on which humanity depends, distributes fresh water, regulates the climate, provides pollination and pest control and reduces the impact of socio-natural hazards. Our livelihoods also depend on nature as more than 2 billion people rely on wood fuel for their primary energy needs; around 4 billion people rely primarily on natural medicines for their health care and some 70 % of drugs used for cancer are natural or are synthetic products inspired by nature. More than 75 % of global food crop types rely on animal pollination and marine and terrestrial ecosystems are the sole sinks for anthropogenic carbon emissions, with a gross sequestration of 5.6 gigatons of carbon per year (the equivalent of 60 % of global anthropogenic emissions).

Humans are part of nature, yet we see it as something separated from us that can be used and destroyed at our discretion. According to the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment Report, around 1 million animal and plant species will disappear from earth and many within the next decades; across much of the highly biodiverse tropics, 32 million hectares of primary or recovering forest were lost between 2010 and 2015; and approximately half the live coral cover on coral reefs has been lost since the 1870s, with accelerating losses in recent decades due to climate change exacerbating other drivers. 

The IPBES report also clearly identifies the direct drivers of change in nature that are: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species and also highlights that since 1980, greenhouse gas emissions have doubled, raising average global temperatures by at least 0.7 degrees Celsius and its impacts are expected to increase over the coming decades, in some cases surpassing the impact of land and sea use change and other drivers. 

In order to address the biodiversity crisis of the world, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was established with the mission to achieve a life in harmony with nature by 2050 through three core objectives; conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.  To achieve the mission and objectives, in 2010, parties to the CBD adopted a 10-year work plan that at its core contained 20 targets, known as Aichi Targets that addressed different issues including: the integration and respect to traditional knowledge (T18), the increase of financial resources from all sources (T20), reform of incentives (T3), and sustainable production and consumption.  

By the end of the work plan, it was clear that the Aichi targets would not be met and that any subsequent plan had to mainly focus on implementation. This is how a working group  is established under the CBD 1 with the aim of conducting the process that will lead to the adoption of a post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework at COP 15 of the CBD in 2019. But the COVID-19 pandemic hit the world and CBD COP 15 was not only postponed until December, 2022, but also changed its venue from Kunming, China to Montreal, Canada.  Over the years, the working group held 5 meetings in total both online and in person. 

What are the results after years of negotiation? 

The lengthy and slow negotiation process produced what is now called the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that at its core contains the following:

A theory of change that recognizes the urgent need for policy action to achieve sustainable development so that drivers of undesirable change that have exacerbated biodiversity loss will be reduced and/or reversed. 

A vision that is the same as contained in the text of the Convention of living in harmony with nature by 2050 and a mission to take urgent action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss to put nature on a path to recovery. Pushed by specially big conservationist groups, the concept of ´nature positive´ contested by civil society was not included in the mission. 

A set of goals that is basically text aligned with the three objectives of the Convention but with the inclusion of goal D on adequate means of implementation, including financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and access to and transfer of technology to also progressively close the biodiversity finance gap of 700 billion dollars per year. 

Section H of the framework contains the Kunming-Montreal 2030 Targets that comprise a set of 23 targets. While all of them are connected, each addresses a particular matter with some representing a step forward, others a step backwards from the Aichi Targets and others being a simple reference to the text of the Convention. 

Target 17 for example only aims to strengthen capacity to implement article 8(g)2 of the Convention that talks about regulation, management and control of risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms. It represents nothing new to the Convention.

Target 3 related to area based conservation enjoyed hyper attention in decrement of all other targets including those addressing the drivers of biodiversity loss. Promoted mainly by big conservationist groups, the proposal to increase protected areas by at least 30%3 was contested by civil society organizations and indigenous peoples groups for different reasons including the associations to “fortress conservation” and its negative impacts mainly on indigenous peoples and local communities who have been criminalized and displaced from their ancestral lands over decades in the pursuit of a colonial and narrow approach to conservation through Protected Areas. The adopted Target does include this quantitative aspect, but it also includes important references to indigenous peoples and recognition and respect to their rights including the rights over their traditional territories. 

Target 15 was not very popular and probably that is the reason for its weak language.  Instead of aiming at stronger regulations for the private sector, in particular transnational corporations, it only asks governments to take legal, administrative or policy measures to encourage and enable business, and in particular to ensure that large and transnational companies and financial institutions, to: Regularly monitor, assess, and transparently disclose their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity; Provide information needed to consumers to promote sustainable consumption patterns; and Report on compliance with access and benefit-sharing regulations and measures, as applicable. 

Target 22 is something worth highlighting as positive since it reads: Ensure the full, equitable, inclusive, effective and gender-responsive representation and participation in decision-making, and access to justice and information related to biodiversity by indigenous peoples and local communities, respecting their cultures and their rights over lands, territories, resources, and traditional knowledge, as well as by women and girls, children and youth, and persons with disabilities and ensure the full protection of environmental human rights defenders.

Target 23 is also a victory thanks to and for civil society and reads: Ensure gender equality in the implementation of the framework through a gender-responsive approach where all women and girls have equal opportunity and capacity to contribute to the three objectives of the Convention, including by recognizing their equal rights and access to land and natural resources and their full, equitable, meaningful and informed participation and leadership at all levels of action, engagement, policy and decision-making related to biodiversity.

The relation between climate change and biodiversity

According to IPBES, climate change is already impacting nature from the level of ecosystems to that of genetics when marine and terrestrial ecosystems are the sole sinks for anthropogenic carbon emissions, with a gross sequestration of 5.6 gigatons of carbon per year (the equivalent of some 60 % of global anthropogenic emissions).

From a climate and ecological justice perspective, the linkages and interdependencies between the atmosphere and the biosphere are evident as well as the common structural causes for the climate and the biodiversity crisis.  However, for developed countries and specific conservationist and private interests, it seems that the only connection is how to include biodiversity’s contribution to mitigation in a market based system through nature based solutions (NBS). 

COP Decision 23  on Climate change and biodiversity lost its real aim over the years and was oversimplified by developed countries that narrowed down the connection between climate change and biodiversity to using the term nature-based solutions. After going in circles and with no concessions from the global north on including even a reference to the CBDR principle, this decision could not reach any way out and was sent back to the Subsidiary Body of Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA)  of the Convention for further discussion. 

Target 8 of the adopted Framework focuses on minimizing the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on biodiversity and increasing its resilience through mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction actions, including through nature-based solutions and/or ecosystem based approaches. The final concession to deal with NBS was to place it together with Ecosystem Based Approaches which is a well defined term under the CBD. 

Target 11 was also resolved by placing NBS and Ecosystem based approaches together as a way to restore, maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to people such as regulation of air, water, and climate, soil health, pollination and reduction of disease risk, as well as protection from natural hazards and disasters.  

Other important elements

Through the decision on Resource Mobilization (CBD/COP/15/L.29), COP 15 adopted a Resource Mobilization Strategy, recognizing that it entails an immediate phase (2023-24), and a medium-term phase (2025-30). It also recognizes the urgency to increase international biodiversity finance, and to establish a dedicated and accessible Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Fund in 2023 to quickly mobilize and disburse new and additional resources from all sources, commensurate with GBF ambition. It requests the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) to:

  • establish in 2023 a special trust fund to support GBF implementation to complement existing support and scale up financing to ensure its timely implementation
  • prepare a decision to be considered by the GEF Council on the approval of the GBF Fund, with its own equitable governing body, to be dedicated exclusively to supporting the implementation of the GBF goals and targets;
  • advance the necessary institutional and governance arrangements, to allow for the GBF Fund to receive, in addition to official development assistance, financing from all sources; and
  • design and implement a project cycle with a simple and effective application and approval process, providing easy and efficient access to resources of the GBF Fund. 

Final remarks 

  • The new Framework is not up to the level of the high expectations and the hard work put in years of negotiation. It fails to address the real drivers of biodiversity loss and even address the structural causes of the destruction of biodiversity. The environmental crisis we are facing responds to common structural problems of our society and our economic model that puts profit over any other consideration. Biodiversity is not attributed rights but instead, it is something we can profit from and can exploit and destroy. This old, anthropocentric and capitalist approach is no longer compatible with the sole existence of millions of species in the world nor with the life and livelihoods of human beings.   
  • The formulation of the new targets is not a remarkable improvement in comparison to the Aichi targets, but there has been progress in specific matters related to their implementation including the work in indicators. While there are explicit linkages with climate change like Target 8, all other targets address important matters to protect biodiversity that in result will have positive contributions to the fight against climate change. 
  • The full implementation of the Framework is also linked to the progress of the decision on resource mobilization and the financial mechanism of the CBD. Developed countries have created upon themselves a fact based reputation of non compliance of their obligations on mitigation and finance under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The CBD cannot travel the same rocky path despite the attempts of rich countries to neglect their historical responsibilities in the destruction of biodiversity. 
  • The results of COP 15 would look very different without the active participation of civil society that has a role in shaping the adopted Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The UNFCCC and the CBD are not the answer to the world and we need to create strong and alternative spaces, but the multilateral process is still relevant and an important strategic space to work on. Without the involvement of civil society, the inclusion and recognition of the rights, in particular of indigenous peoples and local communities, and the adoption of targets 22 and 23 would not have been possible. 
  • On the flip side, the role of big conservationist groups and private interests is evident and also has an impact on the results of COP 15. The promotion of terms and schemes such as Nature Positive and Nature-based solutions have, to say the least, questionable added contributions to biodiversity and distract from addressing the real drivers of biodiversity loss. 
  • The CBD and its new Framework are not the solution to the biodiversity crisis but if fully implemented, the new targets have a potential to contribute to a change in the trajectory of biodiversity loss. Governments alone won’t make it happen because the economic interests are still above all others. The role of civil society to look after implementation in the territories together with making governments accountable for the destruction of biodiversity will be crucial in the coming years. As society, we need urgent work on clear alternative development models through just transitions that can be made effective in the short run. There is no time to lose. We need to create new realities that leave the old ones behind.

1Open Ended Working Group on Post 2020 

2(g) Establish or maintain means to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology which are likely to have adverse environmental impacts that could affect the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account the risks to human health;

  3Its predecessor, Aichi target 17, aimed at 17% of terrestrial land and 10% of coastal and marine areas are conserved through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation 

COP27

People’s power wins at COP27 as loss and damage fund established but talks fail to deliver on other key demands

20 November 2022

Sharm El-Sheikh

As the 27th United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP27) closes, the collective power of civil society groups and grassroots climate activists saw a historic outcome with the establishment of a loss and damage fund. But this victory cannot be attributed to the developed nations who have been blocking and delaying this outcome for years. It is the consistent and powerful mobilization of the frontline climate defenders and those inside the venue who refused their voices to be drowned when negotiations came to a standstill. It is time for developed countries to finally step up and deliver on this fund because an empty fund is an empty promise made at the expense of millions all over the world suffering from the consequences of climate change they cannot adapt to any longer. 

The world is experiencing an unprecedented climate crisis and the United Nations Conferences on Climate Change demonstrate they continue to be held hostage by the rich countries backed by big polluters and failing to deliver real climate action for the people. Rich nations exhausted the capacity of the climate talks this year as they pretended to be leaders on mitigation when they have not met their emission reduction commitments. The developed countries continued their hypocrisy on limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius while locking the world into a fossil fuel dependent future by closing several fossil fuel energy deals on the sidelines as the climate negotiations went on.

Without real solutions, real finance, real actions on reducing global emissions, and real protection of human rights there can be no climate justice.

Representatives of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice share their reactions on this landmark moment in the climate negotiations as well as the key demands the COP27 failed to deliver on.

Lidy Nacpil, Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development:

“We welcome an initial partial win on Loss & Damage Fund — it is there but buried with other ‘financial arrangements.’ And this win is overshadowed by lack of progress on fossil fuel phase out and the continued inclusion of false solutions, which means more loss & damage! Lack of progress on Fossil Fuel phase out shows the hypocrisy of governments of rich countries in their blah blah blah about keeping global temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees, and the corporate capture of the COP by the fossil fuel industries. We need to escalate even more our struggles — in our countries and international arenas! Onwards!”

Meena Raman, Third World Network 

“Since EU and Alok S are disappointed that fossil fuel phase out is not in the text, we would like them to take leadership and revise their NDCs and put into plans their fossil fuel phaseout urgently and stop expansion of fossil fuels including oil and gas! Not enough to play to the gallery but act if they really want to save the planet and not hide behind 2050 net zero targets which will bust the remaining carbon budget for a 1.5 degree C. They have the historical responsibility to get to real zero and in fact negative emissions and not net zero by 2050!”

Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International:

“It is a relief that the Loss and Damage fund has finally been established, after decades of struggle. But, right now, it is an empty fund, and we have a huge challenge ahead to ensure that developed countries contribute to it, in line with justice and equity. We must not see a repeat of the abysmal performance of rich countries failing to provide the already inadequate $100 billion a year promised over a decade ago.”

Jean Su, Center for Biological Diversity: 

“The powerful advocacy of climate-vulnerable countries and the global climate justice movement forced a ground shift at this COP on paying up for loss and damage. The failure to commit to a full fossil fuel phaseout will mean even more loss and damage, in a vicious cycle of escalating harm and inadequate reparation. Any further expansion of fossil fuels betrays world leaders’ promises to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and puts our planet in further peril.”

Asad Rehman, War on Want:

Battle lines were drawn at COP27 between rich countries and poor countries. The US, EU, UK and others came to the Summit with empty words, hollow promises & a refusal to take responsibility for having set the planet on fire and destroying millions of lives & livelihoods.

But we leave the Summit with a glimmer of hope that the establishment of a Loss and Damage Fund will provide much needed support to those on the frontlines of the climate catastrophe. It’s a small step, a critical one, but an empty fund means nothing. Rich countries who continue to pollute must now provide real finance to the fund.

This historic victory was only made possible because of people power. The unprecedented pressure by climate justice groups and the refusal of developing countries to be bullied or divided, dragged rich countries kicking and screaming across the line.

But we leave this Summit bitter at the refusal of the rich to cut their emissions, and shift away from their addiction to fossil fuels. This continues to be a life and death fight for the future of humanity. But the growing power of climate justice movements is sending a warning to rich countries that we are not, and never will be defeated.

Babawale Obayanju, Friends of the Earth Africa:

“The fact that the outcome only talks about ‘phasedown of unabated coal power’ is a disaster for Africa and for the climate. Oil and gas must also be phased out, swiftly and fairly. One small word, ‘unabated’, creates a huge loophole, opening the door to new fossil-based hydrogen and carbon capture and storage projects, which will allow emissions to continue. We don’t need more gas extraction in Africa, devastating our communities for the benefit of rich countries and corporations. What we needed from COP27 was agreement to a rapid, equitable phase out of all fossil fuels.”

Rachel Rose Jackson, Corporate Accountability: 

“Climate talks bankrolled by Big Polluters, and governments like the US doing their bidding. While the perseverance of movements and Global South governments finally secured a way forward for Loss and Damage finance, amidst a climate emergency this alone is simply not enough. COP27 needed to deliver a package of real solutions, real finance, and Real Zero pathways that equitably phase out fossil fuels. As long as Big Polluters are allowed to write the rules, the name of the game will always be ‘climate inaction.’ It’s time to reset the system, kick Big Polluters out, and make them pay for the damage they cause.”

Adrien Salazar, Policy Director of Grassroots Global Justice Alliance

“This COP brought an opaque, undemocratic process that once again focused on the interests of financial institutions and the fossil fuel industry than in the communities who have real solutions to the climate crisis. The conditions of Egypt and restrictions on democracy made this COP in particular a COP of blatant hypocrisy. We stood by Alaa Abd El-Fattah fight for his freedom, and the freedom of all political prisoners, while our own actions as activists were restricted. While a historic loss and damage fund in this final decision is a result of decades of movements advocating for the lives of our communities, more must be done to make concrete the promise of this fund and ensure no finance mechanisms exploit people and reproduce colonial relations between vulnerable populations and financial institutions. This moment is the result of movements. And further real progress to confront the crisis continues outside of the UNFCCC in the streets and in communities where people are organizing to stop new fossil fuel projects and build real community-led and people-centered solutions,”.

Hemantha Withanage, Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka:

“The decision on carbon markets is deeply worrying. Whilst COP27 has temporarily delayed moves to put geoengineering, dangerous and untested technologies, and nature-based solutions into carbon offset markets, we know these threats will rear their heads again, giving cover for continued emissions by polluters, grabbing of land, forests and water from vulnerable communities, and violations of peoples’ rights.”

Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition: 

“The outcomes of the COP27 perilously indicate the immense corporate power and their scandalous lobbying for false climate solutions. A multilateral forum like the UNFCCC is fast losing its credibility, not being able to facilitate bridging the existing gap between global climate policy and climate justice. But, Sharm El Sheikh also demonstrated that it is the indomitable power and strength of the unity of  frontline communities, indigenous peoples, women, peasants, workers and the youth that can force our governments and the corporates to junk false solutions  and change the system to move forward towards real climate solutions and real zero.”

Elizabeth Bast, Oil Change International: 

“In a critical year, this COP again failed to recognise that a rapid and equitable phase-out of all fossil fuels — oil, gas, and coal — is our only chance to achieve climate targets and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Despite some important progress toward establishing a loss and damage fund, the final outcome regurgitated unambitious language on fossil fuels that will lead to catastrophic consequences for people and planet. Even with this disappointing outcome, we’re seeing meaningful commitments from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and countries and institutions ending overseas public finance for fossil fuels. Outside the COP, we will continue the fight for an equitable end to fossil fuels and a just transition to clean energy.” 

Aderonke Ige, Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa: 

“For there to be any semblance of justice in the COP, big polluters must first be kicked out of the process! The brazen hypocrisy of the COP and what has now become a game of ‘hide and seek’ as far as the phasing out of fossil fuel goes, coupled with the embarrassing deletion of human rights, labour rights and the rights of Indigenous peoples in Article 6.4 and the unpopular expungement of reference to mitigation of global emissions by the supervisory body is a dangerous game taken too far. It is crystal clear that rich countries and big polluting corporations have no care or regard for the future, dignity of peoples or true justice; for there can be no climate justice without human rights!”

Susann Scherbarth, Friends of the Earth Germany:

“Like an avalanche, the climate crisis is accelerating and overwhelming people and nature. World leaders talked a lot, but it was the rich nations who acted half-heartedly and unfairly. The EU and US are claiming to be 1.5°c champions, yet still don’t accept equity and their historical responsibility. That is an astonishing and unacceptable betrayal of people and nature. There is a glimpse of hope, the pressure of the people and poor nations made it possible to establish the urgently needed fund for the poorest to deal with climate losses and damages.

“The UN climate conference has put the spotlight on the human rights situation in Egypt — where freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not accepted — and particularly the case of political prisoner Alaa Abd El Fattah. Alaa may not yet be free, but the global community will not stop calling for his release when they leave Egypt. There is no climate justice without human rights.” 

Quotes in other languages

Osver Polo, Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climatico, Perú: 

“Es preocupante que la cop27, no haya avanzando los acuerdos de Glasgow y que ahora buscan salir con la suya para retroceder sus compromisos, la llamada frase IMPLEMENTACION, no se ha cumplido aquí en la cop27, lamentablemente quieren seguir dilatando las tareas, los países del sur necesitan los mecanismos financieros para perdidas y daños. Asimismo, los países desarrollados deben redoblar sus esfuerzos en dejar los combustibles fósiles y reducir sus emisiones antes del 2030, el tiempo se agota.”

Susann Scherbarth, BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany, Germany: 

“Wie eine Schneelawine beschleunigt sich die Klimakrise und überrollt Mensch und Natur. Die Staats — und Regierungschefs der Welt haben viel geredet, aber die reichen Nationen haben nur halbherzig und nicht fair gehandelt. Die EU und die USA nehmen für sich in Anspruch, 1,5-Weltmeister zu sein, akzeptieren aber noch immer nicht ihre historische Verantwortung. Das ist nicht akzeptabel. Es ist ein Verrat an Mensch und Natur.


“Die Weltklimakonferenz hat den Menschenrechten in Ägypten — wo Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit nicht akzeptiert werden — und dem Fall des politischen Gefangenen Alaa Abd El Fattah höchste internationale Aufmerksamkeit verschafft. Alaa ist noch nicht frei, aber die globale Zivilgesellschaft wird nicht aufhören, nach seiner Freilassung zu fordern, auch wenn sie Ägypten verlässt. Es gibt keine Klimagerechtigkeit ohne Menschenrechte.”

Maureen Santos, Fase / Grupo Carta de Belém, Brasil

“Termina a COP 27 e mais uma vez as promessas são adiadas para o próximo ano. Em adaptação e em financiamento. Apesar da criação de um fundo novo para Perdas e Danos, a falta de provisão de montante e de compromissos concretos é frustante, assim como o convite para envolvimento de Instituições Financeiras Multilaterais como FMI e Grupo Banco Mundial, gerando preocupações com mais dívidas para países em situação de emergência climática.” 

Global Campaign to Demand CLimate Justice is a network of over 200 networks and organizations working globally, regionally, and locally on climate justice. Collectively we represent millions of climate activists on the ground.

Our members are available for comments and interviews in different languages. Please contact Rachitaa at [email protected] (+918447445543) to arrange interviews.

COP27

LETTER TO THE HEADS OF STATES

November 9, 2022

Dear Heads of States

We, the undersigned constituencies—representing thousands of climate, climate justice, labor, women and gender rights, Indigenous, and youth organizations across the world—respectfully request that you take a strong stand against the human rights abuses of the Egyptian government and urge the immediate release of the arbitrarily detained activist Egyptian-British national Alaa Abdel Fattah and all other prisoners of conscience in Egypt who are targeted for their peaceful activism.

Those who have disproportionately suffered the horrific harms of the climate emergency are also those who have done the least to cause the crisis, and a climate-just world is one that corrects these inequities head-on. There can be no climate justice without human rights. Egypt’s denial of rights to Mr. Fattah and other activists across Egypt therefore undermines climate justice everywhere.

Such treatment also violates the Paris Agreement, which reaffirms the critical importance of a vibrant civil society and respect for civil rights and political freedoms. A just and equitable world is out of reach without the ability for individuals and organizations to speak up and exercise their right to freedom of expression, protest, and association.

As Egypt hosts the global COP27 climate talks, the world watches Egypt—as well as every government participating in the COP27 talks that condones or carries out such abusive behavior in Egypt and their own jurisdictions. The credibility of the entire UNFCCC process is at stake if states participating in the COP fail to reject the abuse of human rights wherever they take place and deny their foundational role in achieving climate justice. We stand in solidarity with those deprived of liberty and urge you to do all within your power to bring about the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Fattah, and all freedom-fighting activists and prisoners of conscience across the world.

Sincerely,

Environmental NGO Constituency

Women and Gender Constituency

International Trade Union Constituency

Children and Youth Constituency

Indigenous Peoples Constituency

COP27

Intervention by Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice at the Global Stocktake’s Closing Plenary During COP27

This statement is delivered on behalf of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice. 

Delivered by: Victor Menotti, Civil Society Equity Review

DCJ and CSER, which includes CANI and TUNGO sisters and brothers from ITUC.

Executive Secretary has reminded us GST (Global Stocktake) is an accountability exercise to see where we stand and to inform more ambitious actions

IPCC has made clear what’s left of our shrinking carbon budget but it is not their role to say how to manage the remaining atmospheric space. 

Parties must do this, but they are not under the Paris Agreement. We still face a free-for-all with the biggest free-riders speeding us over the cliff. It’s the classic scenario anyone learns about in any basic economics class. 

Equitably sharing the remaining carbon space for a global just transition requires a fair shares frame to inform more ambitious actions from all.  Civil Society has proposed its methodology and several Parties have tabled their own methodologies for determining fair shares.

Next year’s political dialogue must reflect on the relevant technical data to transparently assess countries’ CBDR-RC. Operationalizing equity requires deep political discussion and very difficult decisions on which criteria are acceptable as equitable by all Parties to determine fair shares.

So we hope GST Co-Facilitators’ report includes references to the relevant data in used our submissions and repeated in our interventions, such as:

Dependence on fossil fuels by data on:

  • GDP from fossil fuels
  • Government revenue from fossil fuels
  • Employment percentages from fossil fuels

Capabilities to transition equitably such as:

  • Non-fossil fuel economic prospects for diversification
  • Fiscal and monetary health
  • Hard currency reserves to access foreign technologies
  • Education and training systems

That’s why Parties must responsibly manage the carbon budget, as prudently as your own governments’ national budgets, or, perhaps better, your own personal household budgets, precisely because you know all your loved ones depend on you.