Africa

Indigenous women in Cali hold a protest commodificationof their traditional natural products. Majority of the indigenous organizations participants in the COP have been vocal about their opposition to biodiversitycredits, which they think is a false solution to halt biodiversity loss. Credit:Stella Paul/IPS COP16 Logo, installed at the conference venue atCali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
CALI, Columbia, Oct 26 2024 (IPS)

At the end of the first week at the 16th Conference of Parties on Biodiversity (COP16), finance emerges as the biggest issue but also shrouded in controversies.

On Saturday, as the COP moved closer to its most crucial phase of negotiations, resource mobilization—listed under Target 19 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF)—took centerstage, with most parties demanding faster action, greater transparency and the adoption of true solutions to halt biodiversity loss. 

Biodiversity finance: Expectation vs Reality

On Thursday, October 24, the government of China formally announced that the Kunming Biodiversity Fund—first announced by Chinese president Xi Jinping in 2021—was now fully in operation. The fund promises to contribute USD 220 million over the next 10 years, which would be spent especially to help developing countries in implementation of the KMGBF and achieve its targets, said Huang Runqiu, Minister of Environment and Ecology, China, at a press conference. It wasn’t clear, however, how much of the promised amount had been deposited.

This has been the only news of resource mobilization for global biodiversity conservation received at COP16, as no other donors came forth with any further announcements of new financial pledges or contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), which was expected to receive USD 400 billion in contribution by now but has only received a paltry USD 250 million.  In addition, there were no announcements of the countries reducing their current spending on harmful subsidies that amount to USD 500 billion and cause biodiversity degradation and biodiversity loss.

In absence of new contributions and lack of any concrete progress on reduction of harmful subsidies, the new mechanisms like biodiversity credits to mobilize resources for implementation of the Global Biodiversity Fund is fast gaining traction.

From October 21–24, the COP16 witnessed a flurry of activities centered primarily around biodiversity credits and the building of new pathways to mobilize finance through this means. Experts from both the UN and the private sector were heard at various forums discussing the needs of developing tools and methodologies that would help mobilize new finance through biodiversity credits while also ensuring transparency.

COP16 logo, installed at the conference venue in Cali, Colombia. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Inclusiveness and the Questions

According to a 2023 report by the World Economic Forum, the demand for biodiversity credits could rise to USD 180 billion annually by 2050. The report said that if major companies stepped into the market, the annual demand for biodiversity credits could go to as high as USD 7 billion per year by 2030.

Experts from the UN and a variety of technical people with various backgrounds said that since biodiversity credits are still in their infancy, there will undoubtedly be a lot of scrutiny and criticism. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance is a group that provides guidance for the establishment of a biodiversity credit market. The urgent need, they said, was to develop infrastructure and policies that would help answer those questions and tackle the scrutiny. The first and foremost of them was to help build digital tools and infrastructure that could be used to share and store biodiversity data in a credible and transparent manner.

Nathalie Whitaker, co-founder of Toha Network in New Zealand, a group of nature-based business investors, said that her organization is building digital tools, especially for helping local communities to participate in biodiversity credit programs and access the benefits.

“Once the communities have these tools, they can instantly see what data is being used to pay for the biodiversity credits or even decide the value of the natural sources in their territory. So, they can see what resources are being discussed, what is being valued, how it’s being done and how the whole discussion is moving forward,” Whitaker said.

Fabian Shimdt-Pramov, another speaker at the event, said that the quality of the tools would decide the course and results of a biodiversity credits project.

Shimdt-Pramov, chief business development officer at Biometric Earth, a German company that uses artificial intelligence to build biodiversity analytics tools from different sources such as remote sensing, wildlife cameras, acoustic monitoring, etc.

“If methodology is not correct, if the data is not correct, the system doesn’t work,” he said, emphasizing on the requirement of high-level technological expertise that is needed to get a biodiversity credit project off the ground.

However, when questioned on the cost of buying such high-end technologies and tools, especially by Indigenous communities living in remote areas without any internet connectivity, both speakers appeared to be at a loss for words.

“I have seen in the Amazon a community selling five mahogany trees on the internet, so I am guessing it’s not a big challenge,” Shmidt-Pramov said in a dismissive voice. Whitaker acknowledged that lack of access to digital technology in Indigenous Peoples communities was an issue but had no solutions to propose.

Terence Hay-Edie of Nature ID, UNDP, however, stressed the need to empower the communities with the knowledge and skills that would help them access the tools and be part of a biodiversity credit.

As an example, he cites restoration of river-based biodiversity as a biodiversity credit project where a river is considered to have the same rights as a human being. According to him, if values of credits are counted and traded for restoration of biodiversity around a river, it will require recognition of all these rights that a river has, which is only possible when the community living along the river has full knowledge of what is at stake, what is restored, what value of the restored biodiversity is to be determined and how the pricing of that value will be decided.

“A river can be a legal entity and have a legal ID. Now, can we build some tools and put them in the hands of the community that is doing the restoration to know the details of it? That’s what we are looking at,” Hay-Edie said.

A False Solution?

However, Indigenous peoples organizations at the COP16 were overwhelmingly opposing biodiversity credits, which they called “commodifying nature.”

What are biodiversity credits? It’s basically regenerating biodiversity where it is destroyed and earning money from that. But it doesn’t work that way, according to Souparna Lahiri, senior climate change campaigner at Global Forest Coalition.

“If we talk of a forest, the ecosystem is not just about trees but about every life that thrives in and around it—the rivers, the animals, plants, bees, insects, flowers and all the organisms. Once destroyed, it’s lost forever. And when you regenerate it elsewhere, you can never guarantee that it will be an exact replica of what has been lost.  This is why the very concept of biodiversity credit is a destructive idea,” says Lahiri.

Valentina Figuera, also of the Global Forest Coalition, said that while trading carbon credits could work as a tool in carbon change mitigation, it would not be the same in biodiversity.

“In climate change, you can measure the total carbon generated by a forest, for example. But in biodiversity, how do you measure it? What is the mechanism? How do you even value life that thrives there? So, this concept is a straight import from climate change and forcefully imposed in biodiversity, which is nothing but a false solution, so that businesses that cause biodiversity loss can conduct their business as usual.

The Dilemma of Participation

COP16, dubbed the “People’s Cop” by Colombia, the host country, has drawn several hundred representatives of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC), especially from across Latin America, including Colombia, Brazil, Panama, Venezuela and Peru. While the Latin American IPLC organizations appeared united in their opposition to biodiversity credits, African organizations seemed to be willing to consider it.

Mmboneni Esther Mathobo of the South African NGO International Institute of Environment said that her organization was in support of biodiversity credits, which could, she said, not only help the community earn money but also motivate them further to preserve biodiversity.

“We are influencing and making sure that our rights are safeguarded and protected in this newly emerging market of bringing biodiversity credits,” said Mathobo.

Currently, Namibia is implementing its first biodiversity carbon credits project in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Known as the Wildlife Credits Scheme, the project is known as a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) that rewards communities for protecting wildlife and biodiversity.  Mathobo said that the project in Namibia made her realize that there was a great opportunity for local communities to conserve and restore biodiversity and earn from it.

“We faced many challenges to earn carbon credits because that system was established and created behind our heads. And now we wake up, but we find ourselves sitting with a lot of problems in that market where our communities are not even benefiting. But we believe that with the engagement of the biodiversity alliance, UNDP, we are going to be the ones making sure that whatever happens in the biodiversity credit market, it benefits all our regions and all our communities, as well as safeguarding and protecting our rights,” she said.

“To each their own, if Latin American indigenous communities feel they don’t want to trade natural resources, that’s their right. But in Africa, we have the potential to earn biodiversity credits and we need the money, so we are supporting it,” Mahobo commented when reminded of the opposition of Latin American countries to biodiversity credits.

Source: World Economic Forum Report on Biodiversity Credit

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Capacity Building Is Key to Africa’s Digital Sequencing Success Story
• Biodiversity: Roll Up the Sleeves and Do Something, says Astrid Schomaker, New UNCBD Head
• Explainer: COP16—What’s It About and What Does It Need to Achieve?

How one man is trying to protect people accused of witchcraft from lynchings and abuse.

Arguments about reparations rumbled once again this week as the King spoke at the Commonwealth summit in Samoa.

Victor Boniface and Mohamed Salah are among the footballers omitted from the African player of the year shortlist, sparking debate online.

Anyone interested in unsolved murders and disappearances will find much to study in Sri Lanka. Fifteen to twenty years ago, the country made global headlines, not only for the government’s military offensive against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) guerrillas but also for the numerous murders of journalists. The newly elected president, Anura Kumara […]

Better drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) could assist with the just transition.

By Kevin P. Gallagher and Abebe Shimeles
BOSTON, USA & CAPE TOWN, South Africa, Oct 25 2024 (IPS)

At the 2021 UN Climate Summit, Barbados prime minister Mia Mottley called for more and better use of special drawing rights (SDRs), the International Monetary Fund’s reserve asset.

The special drawing right is an international reserve asset created by the IMF. It is not a currency—its value is based on a basket of five currencies, the biggest chunk of which is the US dollar, followed by the euro. It is a potential claim on the freely usable currencies of IMF members. Special drawing rights can provide a country with liquidity.

Countries can use their special drawing rights to pay back IMF loans, or they can exchange them for foreign currencies.

As Mottley is the newest president of the Climate Vulnerable Forum and Vulnerable Group of 20 (V20) finance ministers, which represents 68 climate-vulnerable countries that are among those with the most dire liquidity needs, including 32 African countries, her call would be directly beneficial to African countries.

In August 2021, as the shock from the COVID-19 pandemic battered their economies, African countries received a lifeline of US$33 billion from special drawing rights. This amounts to more than all the climate finance Africa receives each year and more than half of all annual official development assistance to Africa.

This US$33 billion did not add to African countries’ debt burden, it did not come with any conditions, and it did not cost donors a single cent to provide.

IMF members can vote to create new issuances of special drawing rights. They are then distributed to countries in proportion to their quotas in the IMF. Quotas are denominated in special drawing rights, the IMF’s unit of account.

Quotas are the building blocks of the IMF’s financial and governance structure. An individual member country’s quota broadly reflects its relative position in the world economy. Thus, by design, the poorest and most vulnerable countries receive the least when it comes to quotas and voting shares.

Special drawing rights cannot solve all of Africa’s economic challenges. And their highly technical nature means they are not always well understood. But at a time when African countries are facing chronic liquidity challenges—most countries in the region are spending more on debt service payments than they are on health, education, or climate change—our new research shows that special drawing rights can play an important role in establishing financial stability and enabling investments for development.

Financial stability includes macroeconomic stability (such as low inflation, healthy balance of payments, sufficient foreign reserves), a strong financial system and resilience to shocks.

African leaders are approaching a critical year-long opportunity: in November, the first Group of 20 (G20) summit will convene (with the African Union in attendance as a member for the first time). Then in December, South Africa assumes the G20 presidency.

As African leaders advocate for reforms to the international financial architecture, maximising the potential of special drawing rights should be a central component of their agenda.

The problem

African countries’ finances are facing tough times. External debt in sub-Saharan Africa has tripled since 2008. The average government is now spending 12% of its revenue on external debt service. The COVID-19 pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine, and rises in interest rates and the prices of commodities, like food and fertiliser, have all contributed to this trend.

Debt restructuring mechanisms have also proved inadequate. Countries like Zambia and Ghana got stuck in lengthy restructurings. Weak institutional capacity and poor governance also impede efficient use of public resources.

At the same time, African economies need to increase investment to advance development, support a young and growing population, develop climate resilience and take advantage of the opportunity presented by the energy transition.

To meet the resources for a just energy transition and the attainment of the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, investment in climate and development will have to increase from around 24% of GDP (the average for Africa in 2022) to 37%.

Special drawing rights have proved to be an important tool in addressing these challenges. Research by the IMF and others shows that African countries significantly benefited from the special drawing rights they received in 2021 to stabilise their economies. And this happened without worsening debt burdens or costing advanced economies any money, particularly as they cut development aid.

However, advanced economies exercise significant control over the availability of special drawing rights. The IMF’s quota system determines both voting power and their distribution. Advanced economies control most of the IMF’s quotas.

The advanced economies made the right decision in 2021 and in 2009 to issue new special drawing rights and the time has come again.

The solution

African and other global south leaders need to make a strong case for another issuance of special drawing rights at the IMF and World Bank meetings in Washington.

In addition to a new issuance of special drawing rights, advanced economies still need to be pressured to re-channel the hundreds of billions of special drawing rights sitting idle on their balance sheets into productive purposes.

The 2021 allocation of special drawing rights amounted to US$650 billion in total. But only US$33 billion went to African countries due to the IMF’s unequal quota distribution. Meanwhile, advanced economies with powerful currencies and no need for special drawing rights received the lion’s share.

The African Development Bank has spearheaded one such proposal alongside the Inter-American Development Bank. Under this plan, countries with unused special drawing rights could re-channel them to the African Development Bank as hybrid capital, allowing the bank to lend around $4 for each $1 of special drawing rights it receives.

The IMF approved the use of special drawing rights as hybrid capital for multilateral development banks in May. But it set an excessively low limit of 15 billion special drawing rights across all multilateral development banks.

Even so, advanced economies have been slow to re-channel special drawing rights. The close to $100 billion that have been re-channeled—mostly to IMF trust funds—is meaningful.

But it still falls short of what should have been re-channelled.

In the long term, IMF governance reforms are needed to avoid a repeat of the inefficient distribution of special drawing rights.

As African countries rightly push to change shortcomings of the international financial architecture, new special drawing rights issuances should be at the centre of such a strategy. The IMF’s 2021 special drawing rights issuance showed the tool’s scale and importance. And special drawing rights re-channelling has had positive effects in easing debt burdens and freeing up financing to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

With 2030 approaching and the window shrinking for climate action, global leaders should be using all the tools at their disposal, including special drawing rights, to build a more resilient future.

Kevin P. Gallagher, Professor of Global Development Policy and Director, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University and Abebe Shimeles, Honorary Professor, University of Cape Town

Note: This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Kevin P. Gallagher is from Boston University and Abebe Shimeles from the University of Cape Town

 

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

 

How much do we really understand about the virus formerly known as monkeypox?

How much do we really understand about the virus formerly known as monkeypox?

Ma Moe Wathan (21) feeds her daughter Pan Ei (1.8 year) in their hostel room in A Lal village, Hlaing Thar Yar township, Yangon, Myanmar. Credit: UNICEF/Nyan Zay Htet

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 25 2024 (IPS)

With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and social media, the dissemination of public information moves at a faster speed than ever before. Social media platforms have become an integral tool for users of younger generations to access the news. Although this shift has led to public news being more accessible to younger users, it has also led to an overall decline in media literacy.

According to a study by the Pew Research Center, approximately 54 percent of U.S. adults get their news from social media platforms such as X (formerly known as Twitter), Tiktok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube.

In an increasingly digital age, media literacy has seen a significant decline. Experts have attributed this to the rise of social media, which has led to shorter attention spans among younger generations. Gloria Mark, PhD, professor of informatics at the University of California, states that the average attention spans recorded in 2004 were about two and a half minutes. In the last five years, this has dwindled to about 47 seconds.

Social media platforms offer users a rapidly changing and endless flow of content, which has a negative impact on attention spans. Constant switches from one source of stimuli to another have adverse effects on the default network of the brain and its functions, making it difficult for users to maintain attention.

A study published by the University of British Columbia titled Mind-wandering as spontaneous thought: a dynamic framework, states that “attention and the focus of thoughts frequently shift back and forth between the internal and external environment; there is often a simultaneous deactivation of the DN (default network of the brain) in many different task paradigms”.

While news organizations have social media accounts in an effort to spread the truth and get more engagement, they find themselves being overshadowed by content creators who can more effectively captivate the short attention spans of internet users. These users often incorporate sensationalized language and spread false narratives.

The same study from the Pew Research Center reports that 64 percent of adults surveyed reported feeling confused on what is real or not due to the misinformation or ‘clickbait’ that runs rampant on social platforms. 23 percent reported that they shared false information either knowingly or unknowingly.

Misinformation, while not always intentionally harmful, can have negative effects on the relationship between experts and the public. “Polarization on topics such as climate change and vaccines has damaged public trust in science, which makes it harder for scientists to serve society,” said Dr Ataharul Chowdhury, an agricultural scientist at the University of Guelph.

The rise of generative AI in media spaces has added a layer of complication, as social analysts describe it as an amplifier for misinformation. The field of AI is largely unregulated and offers users the tools to create hyper realistic images and photos that could easily deceive viewers.

As Gita Johar, the Meyer Feldberg Professor of Business at Columbia Business School, Columbia University explained, the presence of AI and the “amount of misinformation” created in social media sites is going to multiply.

“People have started realizing that AI is behind a lot of this misinformation. Over time, they’re not going to know what to trust anymore, plus there’s such a deficit of trust in society as it is. As AI does more and more, even if you have disclaimers saying such and such was produced by AI, what you’re going to see is consumers becoming more skeptical of information,” she said.

The effects of the decline in media literacy has significant ramifications on the ways that people conduct their daily practices, inlcuding when it comes to food. Facts about the relationship between the meat industry and food production have been largely divisive among the American public.

According to the United Nations (UN), the meat production industry is a significant contributor to the climate crisis, emitting more greenhouse gasses than the world’s biggest oil companies. Additionally, meat production is responsible for dwindling water resources and exacerbates deforestation.

A 2023 survey conducted by the Washington Post-University of Maryland reports that 74 percent of Americans think that meat production and consumption has little to no detrimental impact on the environment.

A report published by Changing Markets Foundation (CMF) used opinion mining and language processing algorithms to detect over 948,000 tweets from 1 June 2022 to 31 July 2023 that contained misinformation about meat production and its impacts, as well as false statements about alternative practices such as adopting plant-rich diets and consuming poultry instead of red meat.

CMF summarized the main sentiments found in misleading posts that focused on meat production and consumption. 78 percent of users disparaged alternatives of meat and dairy products and discredited their potential benefits for the environment and public health. 22 percent of users tweeted that meat consumption is wholly beneficial for the human body. Many users also attempted to refute scientific data on the environmental impact of global animal agriculture.

Misinformation surrounding agriculture and plant consumption has become widespread in the past two decades. Genetically modified crops and organic farming have been points of significant contention for both farmers and consumers in recent years.

While there are supporters for both sides of the argument, it is farmers and marketers who appeal to the consumer’s fears of health concerns and environmental damage to convince people to buy their products. “Agri-food misinformation creates anxiety, uncertainty and confusion among farmers and consumers,” says Chowdhury.

Transparent advertising is essential for the agriculture industry, especially in today’s climate where people do not know if they can trust the food that they are eating. “Businesses can lead the way here. Advertisers need to work together to make this happen. It’s good for them, and it’s good for society. It’s really a win-win. Then they can actually force platforms to abide by some kind of rules and procedures and make sure that they’re actually monitoring and trying to prevent the spread of misinformation,” says Johar.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Ademola Lookman says he is "never satisfied" despite his performances for Nigeria and Atalanta earning him a nomination for the Ballon d'Or.

Credit: World Meteorological Organization/Muhammad Amdad Hossain

By Selahattin Selsah Pasali and Selim Raihan
BANGKOK, Thailand, Oct 25 2024 (IPS)

In the coming decades, the Asia-Pacific region faces a series of challenges that threaten to exacerbate poverty. Among these, climate change, demographic shifts, particularly population ageing and the rise of digital technologies stand out as three interconnected global megatrends.

A recent technical paper supporting the Social Outlook for Asia and the Pacific 2024 explores various scenarios on how climate change, demographic shifts and digitalization could impact poverty. It reveals that 266 million people could be at risk of falling into poverty by 2040.

This underscores the urgent need to strengthen and finance social protection systems across the region, as addressing these issues proactively is far more cost-effective than reacting to them later.

Understanding the megatrends

Climate change is increasingly evident, with rising temperatures, extreme weather and disrupted ecosystems impacting both the environment and economies. This poses a direct threat to livelihoods, especially for those dependent on agriculture and natural resources.

Population ageing is another significant trend. While longer life expectancy is positive, it strains social services, healthcare and pension systems. Without integrated policies to address these pressures, public resources, already strained by debt, could face further strain, risking economic instability.

Digital technologies advance rapidly, offering growth and efficiency benefits but also posing challenges. Job displacement and increased inequality are potential risks if these technologies are not managed inclusively. Balancing their benefits and risks is crucial for equitable progress.

The Impact on Poverty

Using the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model to project 2040 scenarios, varying degrees of climate change, demographic shifts, and digitalization show a stark contrast between optimistic and pessimistic outcomes, highlighting the crucial need to enhance social protection expenditures. Two scenarios are considered in the model with results presented in Figure 1:

• Optimistic scenario: This scenario assumes a 1.5-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures, that populations age in a healthy manner, and significant improvements are made by countries in ICT productive capacity by 2040. Under this scenario, the projected increase in poverty by 2040 is 199.8 million people or 6.5 per cent of the total population in the Asia-Pacific region.
• Pessimistic scenario: In contrast, the pessimistic scenario assumes a 2.0-degree Celsius increase in global temperatures, no progress in healthy ageing and insufficient advancements in ICT productivity. Here, the poverty headcount is projected to increase by 266.1 million people or 8.7 per cent of the total population.

Source: ESCAP elaborations based on GTAP model and household income and expenditure surveys from 27 countries available in ESCAP SPOT Simulator. Note: As per table 5.1, three global megatrends including climate change, demographic shifts, including ageing, and digitalization are introduced in the GTAP model as shocks.
 
The pessimistic scenario presumes a 2-degree Celsius rise in temperature, populations ageing in an unhealthy manner and countries slowly improving their ICT Productive Capacity. The optimistic scenario presumes a 1.5-degree Celsius rise in temperature, populations ageing in a healthy manner with less health expenditures needed and countries making significant improvements in their ICT Productive Capacity.

The difference between these scenarios illustrates the profound impact of each megatrend. Climate change is a major driver of increased poverty. For instance, under a pessimistic scenario, Kiribati, Nepal and Tonga could see their poverty rates rise by over 15 percentage points relative to the baseline.

Even with just a 1.5°C warming, the regional average poverty rate could increase by 2.8 percentage points, highlighting climate change’s significant impact on poverty. Population ageing is also a critical factor.

Without healthy ageing, an additional 10 million people might fall into poverty due to rising healthcare costs, with countries like Armenia, Kiribati, Maldives and Mongolia being especially vulnerable. Digitalization, though less impactful overall, has notable effects in specific countries like Türkiye, Viet Nam and Vanuatu, influencing differences between optimistic and pessimistic scenarios.

The urgent need for action

If social protection expenditures are not increased, the cost of mitigating the rise in poverty could be substantial. To counteract the projected poverty increases, approximately 6.2 per cent of GDP would need to be mobilized under the optimistic scenario.

The total cost would increase to 8.7 per cent of GDP in 2040 under the pessimistic scenario. These are lower-bound estimates as they assume governments could directly target affected households and seamlessly provide cash transfers.

The projected rise in poverty and associated costs underscore the urgent need for government action which necessitates stronger political will to match the associated investment needs. Empirical analysis supports several key policy recommendations.

Governments should implement policies for a just transition, which includes effective climate action to mitigate the economic and social impacts of both sudden and gradual disasters and to support the shift towards a net-zero emissions economy.

Additionally, strategies for healthy ageing and investing in healthcare infrastructure, such as universal social health protection, can ease the financial strain of an ageing population, ensuring social stability and economic prosperity.

At the same time, policymakers should also focus on fostering inclusive digital economies, providing opportunities for all, including those at risk of being left behind. Investments in digital literacy and skills training are crucial to counteract digital disruption’s negative effects.

Overall, expanding social protection coverage and increasing benefit levels are essential. This includes implementing social protection floors and gradually enhancing multi-pillared systems to cover more individuals and increase benefits, ensuring no one is excluded from protection against life cycle contingencies and shocks.

Originally published as an opinion piece by Nikkei Asia.

Selahattin Selsah Pasali is Social Affairs Officer, Social Development Division, ESCAP; Selim Raihan is Professor, Department of Economics, University of Dhaka and Executive Director of South Asian Network on Economic Modeling (SANEM)

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

A selection of the week's best photos from across the African continent and beyond.

By Melek Zahine
PARIS, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Nobody should be fooled by President Biden’s recent warning to Israel that the U.S. may level consequences if it doesn’t do more to surge humanitarian aid into Gaza within the next 30 days. Biden’s warning, along with Anthony Blinken’s 11th trip to Israel and the region to try and revive ceasefire talks, is nothing more than cynical double talk designed to appease domestic audiences and buy time for Israel to deepen its genocidal aims against the Palestinian people and brutally punish those who support their liberation.

Melek Zahine

Israel knows that Washington’s warnings aren’t serious. Despite independently documented evidence of Israel’s genocidal actions and war crimes in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebonon, billions of dollars in offensive arms transfer, intelligence and military support from the United States continue unabated. Israel also knows that the U.S. government has consistently operated in their favor in breach of domestic U.S. laws not only for the past year but for decades. U.S. National Security Memorandum 20 and the Leahy Laws both stipulate that the United States cannot provide any form of assistance, especially military aid, to a country that is restricting the delivery of U.S.-funded humanitarian assistance.

It’s no surprise that Israel’s immediate response to Biden’s warning and Blinken’s shuttle diplomacy this week has been to escalate the humanitarian blockade and military offensive on Gaza’s already besieged civilian population, especially in famine-stricken Northern Gaza, where tens of thousands of unarmed and starved men, women and children are now being trapped, corralled, and slaughtered like animals by Israeli political elites who have an endless supply of lethal U.S.- weapons and Biden’s iron-clad loyalty on their side.

As Israel prevents humanitarian aid from reaching beleaguered and displaced Palestinian civilians throughout the Gaza Strip, hospitals are now faced with dwindling medical supplies amidst the growing numbers of injured and ill. Healthcare providers and first responders, who themselves are struggling to survive, now have little more than their compassion to offer the sick and the dying. Unless President Biden uses his singularly unique leverage to take decisive, immediate action, tens of thousands more Palestinians will be killed in the next thirty days, 75% of which will be women and children.

As a U.S. citizen who has worked in the field of humanitarian assistance for more than 30 years, I have both witnessed and paid keen attention to the devastating human toll on civilian lives that my government has consistently chosen to unleash since 9/11 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and now Gaza and Lebanon. Rather than work to de-escalate during times of crisis through earnest, mature diplomacy, the United States, irrespective of which political party is in power, has all too often chosen to pursue extreme military force as the cornerstone of its foreign policy, benefitting narrow special interest groups in Washington at the expense of innocent populations abroad, U.S. soldiers and average U.S. taxpayers at home.

During my career, I’ve also had the privilege of witnessing those rare moments when the United States has chosen to mitigate harm by using its powerful foreign policy tools to de-escalate conflicts and secure humanitarian spaces. In 1991, in Northern Iraq, the U.S. led a multi-nation coalition of NATO and U.N. partners to deliver emergency aid and protection to Iraqi Kurdish refugees fleeing gas attacks by Saddam Hussein. Also, in the 90s, the United States helped deliver C5 Galaxy loads of lifesaving emergency supplies to besieged civilians in Sarajevo and worked with NATO and U.N. partners to enforce a no-fly zone over the former Yugoslavia. This decision helped lessen the level of violence between the various warring sides and protect civilians and U.N. personnel. During earthquakes, such as the ones that hit Turkiye in 1999 and 2023, the United States sent search and rescue teams, often being the first to reach people trapped under tons of concrete and metal with specialized equipment and dogs. Biden’s decision to leave Palestinian civilians and civil defense workers to desperately try and rescue people under destroyed homes and shelters caused by U.S. bombs, with nothing but their bare hands says everything one needs to know about the emptiness of his latest warnings, red lines, and shuttle diplomacy. Biden’s foreign policy is nothing but a cruel and unusual punishment that the U.S. Constitution’s 8th Amendment warns Americans against inflicting on others.

If President Biden were actually serious about addressing the humanitarian catastrophe facing Palestinians and now the Lebanese, he wouldn’t need to wait 30 days. All he would need to do is immediately emulate past American administrations and execute his executive powers, enforce an immediate no-fly zone over Gaza and Lebanon, and authorize an immediate arms embargo on Israel. This combined approach would immediately improve conditions for a lasting cease-fire, unimpeded humanitarian access and prevent a further escalation of regional tensions. Rather than use his remaining days in office to buy time for Israel to cause more human suffering, President Biden must buy time for those who won’t live to see another day without a more humane U.S. foreign policy intervention. Imagine being the most powerful leader in the world and choosing anything less.

The author is a humanitarian affairs and disaster response specialist.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Anne Olhoff, Chief Climate Advisor at UNEP

By Umar Manzoor Shah
COPENHAGEN & SRINAGAR , Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Anne Olhoff, Chief Climate Advisor at UNEP, underlined the urgent need for accelerated climate action ahead of COP29 in an exclusive interview with IPS. “The next six years are crucial—without accelerated action, we will miss the chance to limit warming to 1.5°C,” she warned.

Olhoff stressed that while ambition is essential, “What we need most is immediate action.”

Olhoff also termed the role of the Emissions Gap Report as a bridge between science and policy, advocating for financial and technical support to ensure a just transition for developing countries.

As Chief Climate Advisor and as part of the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre management, Olhoff provides climate science-policy advice and supports climate strategy development and implementation in the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre and UNEP.

Olhoff has worked with UNEP throughout her career and has more than 25 years’ experience in international science-policy advice, technical assistance and research on climate change mitigation and adaptation in the context of sustainable development.

Since 2012, Olhoff has led the annual UNEP flagship report on climate change mitigation—the Emissions Gap Report—guiding and coordinating the work of more than 70 scientists from at least 35 institutions across more than 25 countries in addition to being the chief scientific editor of the report.

On the eve of the publication of the 2024 emissions report entitled ‘No more hot air … please’ Olhoff gave an exclusive interview to IPS.

Here are excerpts from the interview.

Inter Press Service (IPS): What do you expect from COP29? How do you think it will help on the ground?

Anne Olhoff: That’s a tricky question. The Emissions Gap Report doesn’t dive deeply into COP29 specifically, but we aim to guide discussions during COP29 and the preparation for the next Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which countries will submit before COP30. The report highlights where we stand now and what needs to happen in the short term and with the next NDCs. Hopefully, this will provide useful insights for the discussions in Baku as well.

IPS: How do you see the role of science-policy advice in climate action, especially with the rise of net-zero targets?

Olhoff: That’s an excellent question. Through the Emissions Gap Report, we aim to contribute to this effort. Our goal is to provide science-based yet timely and relevant information for international discussions. Unlike IPCC reports, which are published every six years, the Emissions Gap Report offers an annual, tailored update.

What’s reassuring is that the report has been well received. Surveys show that 75-83 percent of national delegations use it during climate negotiations or in their submissions to the UNFCCC. This suggests we are filling a gap by offering valuable information between IPCC cycles.

IPS: After leading the Emissions Gap Report for several years, what are your key takeaways, and how have its findings influenced global strategies?

Olhoff: It’s hard to pinpoint specific changes directly resulting from the report, but it has certainly shed light on critical issues—both on where we’re headed and where we need to be. Importantly, this year’s report highlights solutions across all sectors, focusing on ways to accelerate emission reductions across the economy.

IPS: From your experience with both adaptation and mitigation, which areas need immediate attention, and where do you see the biggest gaps?

Olhoff: There’s a lot of potential for synergies between adaptation, mitigation, and development goals. Agriculture and forestry offer some of the greatest opportunities, but energy systems are equally critical. Access to electricity for cooling, for instance, is essential to building climate resilience.

It’s important to note that mitigation must come first. If emissions aren’t reduced, no amount of adaptation will prevent severe impacts and losses. Reducing emissions minimizes the future burden on adaptation efforts.

IPS: How has UNEP’s approach to climate change evolved over the years, and what recent developments excite you the most?

Olhoff: This is the 15th edition of the report, which we’ve been producing since 2010. Back then, temperature projections based on existing policies were about half a degree higher than they are now. This shows that we’ve made some progress, although it’s not enough.

One exciting development is the advancement of renewable energy, especially in terms of cost reductions and deployment. However, we need to ensure these breakthroughs benefit all countries, not just a select few. There’s a strong need to improve investment flows to developing economies, especially outside China.

IPS: Coordinating with scientists from over 25 countries must be challenging. How do you maintain alignment and quality control?

Olhoff: We follow a process similar to the IPCC. We have author teams, a steering committee involving IPCC representatives and UNFCCC experts, and rigorous external reviews.

Additionally, we send draft reports to countries mentioned in the report to allow for feedback and ensure we aren’t missing important perspectives. It’s a tightly managed process to maintain high scientific standards.

IPS: What trends or innovations do you think will play a pivotal role in climate transparency and reporting in the coming decade?

Olhoff: One major development will be the biennial transparency reports, which countries will submit by the end of this year. These reports will help track progress more accurately and offer opportunities to learn from each other’s experiences.

While we have many of the technologies needed to achieve steep reductions, investing in research and development for new mitigation options will be essential moving forward. Improved transparency will also help ensure accountability.

IPS: With your experience in advisory roles, how important is interdisciplinary collaboration in shaping climate policies, particularly at the intersection of health, disaster management, and climate resilience?

Olhoff: It’s absolutely critical. Often, experts focus on isolated components—like the energy system—without considering how everything connects. Interdisciplinary approaches help us understand the complex relationships and address flaws in narrower frameworks. This has been a key focus in my work.

IPS: How do you manage the tension between political agendas and scientific evidence when advising on climate strategies?

Olhoff: We stick to scientific principles. Of course, we consider political sensitivities, but we aim to provide unbiased and credible analysis. Engaging with authors from around the world and including extensive peer reviews helps ensure we capture different perspectives.

When we encounter differences of opinion, we stay grounded in science to maintain credibility. The goal is to provide sound, defensible analysis.

IPS: Transitioning away from fossil fuels is challenging, especially for countries with fossil reserves. How can a just transition happen for developing countries without jeopardizing their economies?

Olhoff: That’s a tough question, but an important one. Renewable energy is already cost-competitive in many parts of the world. However, countries need financial and technical support to transition away from fossil fuels.

For countries with large untapped fossil fuel reserves, compensation mechanisms may be necessary to encourage them not to exploit these resources. The next round of NDCs offers an opportunity for these countries to present investment-ready plans that outline what support they need to pursue ambitious climate goals.

IPS: Do you see COP29 as a now-or-never opportunity for climate action?

Olhoff: I wouldn’t say COP29 alone is the deciding moment, but the next six years are crucial. If we continue on the current path, we will miss the chance to limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2030.

The real focus should be on accelerating country-level actions. While increased ambition in the next NDCs is essential, it won’t mean much without immediate action. As the Emissions Gap Report emphasizes, every delay increases the risks of costly and irreversible impacts.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• UNEP’s 2024 Emissions Gap Report Warns: ‘No More Hot Air, Please’

Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station from an aeroplane. Credit: Matt Buck/Climate Visuals

By Umar Manzoor Shah
COPENHAGEN, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report 2024 delivered a stark reminder that the world is still far from meeting its climate commitments.

The report, released today, October 24, highlights the widening gap between climate rhetoric and reality as greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reach 57.1 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO₂) in 2023—a record high that undermines the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Addressing the press conference while releasing the report, titled “No More Hot Air …please,” United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres issued a warning to the world. With current greenhouse gas emissions at record highs, Guterres said that humanity is “teetering on a planetary tightrope,” with catastrophic consequences looming unless countries act decisively to close the emissions gap.

 

The cover of UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2024 ‘No more hot air… please.’ Credit: UNEP

“Either leaders bridge the emissions gap, or we plunge headlong into climate disaster—with the poorest and most vulnerable suffering the most,” Guterres said during a video address from the report’s launch event in Nairobi.

According to the Emissions Gap Report 2024, global greenhouse gas emissions rose 1.3 percent in 2023 to their highest levels in history. At the current pace, the world is on track for a 3.1°C temperature rise by the end of the century—well above the limits set by the Paris Agreement.

Guterres emphasized that limiting global warming to 1.5°C remains technically feasible, but only if emissions fall by 9 percent annually until 2030. Without swift intervention, the UN chief warned of more frequent and extreme weather events.

“Record emissions mean record sea temperatures, supercharging monster hurricanes; record heat is turning forests into tinderboxes and cities into saunas; record rains are resulting in biblical floods,” he said.

Guterres termed the COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, as a pivotal moment for global climate policy. The Secretary-General outlined two major areas where urgent progress is essential. One, he said, is National Climate Action Plans (NDCs).

“COP29 starts the clock for countries to deliver new national climate action plans—NDCs—by next year,” Guterres said.
Governments are expected to align these plans with the 1.5°C target by driving down emissions across all sectors and phasing out fossil fuels swiftly and equitably.

Guterres urged countries to commit to reversing deforestation and accelerating the deployment of renewable energy. Another area, according to the Secretary General, that merits immediate concern is climate finance.

Guterres said that the success of the clean energy transition depends heavily on financial support for developing countries, which are already struggling with climate-induced disasters.

“COP29 must agree to a new finance goal that unlocks the trillions of dollars they need and provides confidence it will be delivered,” he said.

The Secretary-General urged significant increases in concessional public financing, along with cutting-edge techniques like levies on fossil fuel extraction. He also urged reforms in multilateral development banks to enhance their role in climate financing.

The Secretary-General emphasized that climate action is not just a matter of environmental responsibility but also of economic foresight. He stressed that the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of action.

As the largest emitters, G20 nations, responsible for 80 percent of global emissions, must take the lead in closing the emissions gap. Guterres challenged the wealthiest countries to act first. “I urge first-movers to come forward. We need leadership now more than ever,” he said.

Guterres echoed the UNEP report’s urgent message that “people and the planet cannot afford more hot air.” The time for empty promises has passed, and concrete steps are required to meet the climate goals. “Today’s Emissions Gap report is clear: we’re playing with fire, but there can be no more playing for time. We’re out of time,” he said.

The latest Emissions Gap Report 2024 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has sounded a dire alarm on the disconnect between political commitments and the reality of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In stark language, the report urges governments to close the widening gap between rhetoric and action.

“The transformation to net-zero economies must happen, and the sooner this global transformation begins, the better. Every fraction of a degree avoided counts in terms of lives saved, economies protected, damages avoided, biodiversity conserved, and the ability to rapidly bring down any temperature overshoot,” reads the report.

UNEP warned that the current trajectory leaves the world on a path toward 2.6°C warming this century, far beyond the Paris Agreement targets. The report calls for a “quantum leap” in ambition and urgent action from governments, particularly ahead of the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) due in early 2025.

Here are some highlights:

G20 Nations Hold the Key to Global Emission Reductions

The report has highlighted that G20 countries, responsible for 77 percent of global emissions, must take the lead in closing the emissions gap. While these countries have set net-zero goals, their current policies fall short of aligning with the necessary emission reductions. Without significant improvements, the G20 is projected to miss its NDC targets for 2030 by at least 1 GtCO₂e.

Required Cuts: 42 percent Reduction by 2030 for 1.5°C Target

To achieve the 1.5°C pathway, global emissions must decrease by 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels—equivalent to an annual reduction of 7.5 percent. The report highlights the severe consequences of delayed action, warning that any further postponement would necessitate doubling the rate of emissions cuts after 2030.

Sectoral Solutions: Renewables and Reforestation Offer Hope

The report has identified solar and wind energy as key contributors to bridging the emissions gap. Together, these technologies could deliver 27 percent of the total emission reduction potential by 2030. Forest-related measures, including reforestation and reducing deforestation, offer another 20% potential. However, achieving these targets requires massive increases in investment—at least six times the current levels—and rapid deployment of policies across sectors.

NDCs and Climate Finance: Critical Areas for Focus

It has also stressed the importance of the upcoming NDC submissions.  According to the report, these commitments, due before February 2025, must reflect higher ambitions, concrete plans, and robust financial backing to make meaningful progress toward net-zero emissions. Developing countries, in particular, require international support and reformed financial systems to meet their climate goals.

Urgency and Cooperation are Paramount

UNEP has underlined the need for a whole-of-government approach and stronger public-private partnerships to accelerate progress. “We are running out of time,” the report warns. “The transformation to net-zero economies is inevitable, and the sooner we act, the more lives, ecosystems, and economies we can save.”

The report has identified the COP29 summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, as a crucial time for nations to align their policies with 1.5°C pathways. Without immediate, ambitious actions, UNEP cautions that 2°C—once the backup target—could soon become unreachable.

“With the clock ticking down to 2030 and 2035, the message is unequivocal: ambition without action is meaningless. Governments must move from pledges to policies and ensure that commitments are backed by robust implementation plans,” says the report.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

 

Excerpt:

"We’re playing with fire, but there can be no more playing for time. We’re out of time," says UN Secretary General António Guterres

The two White House hopefuls debated on ABC television on September 10, 2024, but their mentions of Latin America were mainly dedicated to the issue of migration. Credit: Michael Le Brecht II / ABC

By Humberto Márquez
CARACAS, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Migration, trade, the defence of democracy, the confrontation with China and the collapse of multilateralism are issues that shed more doubts than certainties on Latin America’s expectations of the imminent presidential elections in the United States.

Interest and tension have grown after dozens of polls and bookmakers have shown similar chances of victory for Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump, particularly in a few decisive states.“After Washington's retreat from the wars it got into in the Middle East, there is resistance among people to getting involved in the world's problems, which weakens the liberal democratic order”: Vilma Petrash.

Latin America has been treated by many US administrations as its ‘backyard’, but it is now commonplace that Washington’s international priority lies far from the region.

Nevertheless, “we should not underestimate the ways in which Democrats and Republicans are different”, warned Tullo Vigevani, former professor of international relations at Brazil’s Paulista State University.

“For example, their proposals and policies are very different on the environment, in general and in relation to Latin America; on renewable energy and biofuels – particularly in the case of Brazil – and regarding human rights and some authoritarian trends in the region”, Vigevani told IPS from Sao Paulo.

Even if some governments are more sympathetic to Harris or Trump, Vigevani believes that both Washington and the region’s capitals will seek understandings and a relationship as normal as possible, after the 5 November election.

Migrants in the Mexican border city of Tijuana approach the barrier that closes access to the United States. Credit: Alejandro Cartagena / IOM

Migration rules

Among the campaign issues, such as economy and employment, taxes, health, wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, and the opposing personalities of both candidates, migration stands out, with Latin American countries being the main expellers of migrants to the United States.

“It is a sensitive issue for Americans, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents. It affects the immigrant population, the millions of refugees, and therefore the countries of Latin America,” Vilma Petrash, a Venezuelan professor of political science and international relations at Miami Dade College, told IPS.

Of the 336 million people living in the United States, 46.2 million were of foreign origin in 2022, according to the non-governmental Pew Research Center; 49% are already U.S. citizens, 24% are legal permanent residents, and the rest, more than 11 million people, are unauthorised immigrants, eight million of whom are from Latin American and Caribbean countries.

In fact, the United States is currently home to 65 million ‘Hispanics’, as Latin Americans are called in the country, according to different reports, and they have become a desired prize for the two candidates.

Trump, who pushed for the construction of a wall on the southern border during his presidency (2017-2021), now offers massive deportations of illegals – one million immediately, according to his vice-presidential candidate, James Vance -, and to contain irregular border immigration even by using the military.

They are “the enemy within”, Trump has said, and has stigmatised migrants: he said that criminals from Venezuela have left their country for the United States, “leaving Caracas as one of the safest cities in the world”, or that Haitians “are eating the pets” in the northern industrial state of Ohio.

Harris, who is the current vice-president and lead programmes with which president Joe Biden also tried to address causes of migration, such as poverty in Central America, has said that the immigration system “needs reform”, without going into details.

Whichever side wins, the controls will predictably increase, and Washington’s announcement that it will not renew in 2025 the temporary stay permits (parole), which allow Venezuelans, Haitians, Cubans and Nicaraguans to enter and remain in the United States for two years, was a warning sign.

The US aircraft carrier USS Nimitz sails through the Arabian Gulf. Credit: US Army

The United States isolates itself

The migration issue shows the United States’ willingness to isolate itself, to withdraw, instead of taking a proactive approach, as a great global power, to solving problems in the region and the world.

According to Petrash, “after Washington’s retreat from the wars it got into in the Middle East, there is resistance among people to getting involved in the world’s problems, which weakens the liberal democratic order. Donald Trump’s ‘America First’ policies are a case in point”.

The expert said from Miami, in the southeastern state of Florida, that there is also a lack of consensus over foreign policy, and in general over governance, to the point that a part of the population still, countering evidence, supports the version that it was Trump and not Biden who won the election four years ago.

While Biden has consistently supported Ukraine in the war against Russia, and Israel’s current military offensive in the Middle East, his political action in favour of democracy in Latin America has been weaker, and Harris would continue this, although with revisions, according to Petrash.

This is despite the certainty that, for example, among the alternatives for containing regional migration, in which the exodus of more than seven million Venezuelans in the last decade stands out, is to promote a solution to the democratic crisis in that country.

As a result of its policies and omissions, its polarised political confrontation and doubts about its electoral system, and the rise of isolationism, the United States “would have to regain the moral stature necessary to help stem democratic backsliding in the region”, says Petrash.

These setbacks are expressed in left-wing governments with authoritarian tendencies, such as those in Nicaragua and Venezuela, but also in sectors that have backed right-wing presidencies such as those of Jair Bolsonaro (2019-2022) in Brazil and the current administrations of Javier Milei in Argentina and Nayib Bukele in El Salvador.

Bolsonaro, Milei and Bukele have openly identified with Trump, whose sector harbours a far-right conservative current. For Petrash, this could favour a rapprochement with Latin American countries where there is a democratic backlash.

Unloading wind turbines from China at the port of Bahía Blanca, Argentina. It shows China’s penetration into the renewable energy sector in the Southern Cone, where it is already a major trading partner. Credit: Port of Bahía Blanca

China moves forward

Petrash points out that the United States’s international retreat was acute in Latin America, “its natural strategic zone”, after the failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) initiative in 2005. “It abandoned its vision of free trade in the region and let China move forward with its enclaves,” she said.

China, “an economic, political and ideological rival, has sold itself as successful authoritarianism, and has taken advantage of Washington’s absences in Latin America to advance its quiet, pragmatic diplomacy,” says Petrash.

Trade between China and Latin America reached US$480 billion in 2023 after increasing 35-fold in 2000-2022, while the region’s total trade with the world increased four-fold, according to the  Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Nevertheless, trade with the Asian giant is still far from the region’s trade with the United States, which in the same year amounted to US$1.14 trillion.

Relations between Latin America and China “have grown and even strengthened in strategic areas such as new materials for energy production, lithium batteries -South America has large reserves of the mineral-, or artificial intelligence”, Vigevani states.

Certification of Brazilian meat for export. Brazil is the largest exporter of beef and poultry, and very active in the World Trade Organization. Credit: Abrafrigo

Brazil and Mexico

Meanwhile, Brazil is concerned about Washington’s disdain – which will be evident if Trump wins – for multilateral institutions, starting with the United Nations and the proposed renewal of its Security Council in order to make it effective.

For Vigevani, this distancing from multilateralism is illustrated by the blockade, which Washington has maintained since 2020, on the appointment of new members to the dispute settlement body of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), initiated by Trump and continued by Biden.

“Even if relations with Brazil and Latin America in general look normal, this United States refusal raises doubts for the future, because it is saying it is not interested in multilateral organisations,” said Vigevani.

In the case of a Trump victory, the Brazilian professor points out, there are also unanswered questions about what his war and peace policies will be.

An example is the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Trump has said that “ending this war quickly is in the best interest of the United States” and that he can achieve “a peace agreement in one day”, without offering further details, said Vigevani.

“It is important because, despite the war, Brazil has a strong relationship with Russia, and a very active participation in the Brics group (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa),” Vigevani recalled.

According to Petrash, with Trump’s international policy, “the great power can be the bull in the china shop, and even more, the bull isolating itself in the china shop”.

At the other end of the region is Mexico, a partner of Canada and the United States in the trade agreement known as USMCA, which replaced in 2020 the North American Free Trade Agreement that has existed since 1994.

Along with maintaining the 3150-kilometre southern border of the United States, a destination for hundreds of thousands of migrants who cross the region each year, Mexico faces the campaign promise from both Harris and Trump that they intend to revise the USMCA as soon as they reach the White House.

Trump is expected to introduce tariffs and protectionist barriers, for example on Mexican production involving Chinese parts or technologies, and Harris is expected to increase environmental and labour requirements that favour industries with United States labour.

Whichever side wins, “with the new American policy of bringing companies back to the United States or to its partners in the USMCA, possibly the biggest issue now is the end of globalisation and the return to a developmentalist nationalism”, summarised Vigevani.

Former Arsenal, Man City and Real Madrid striker Emmanuel Adebayor aims to help the next generation in Togo after hanging up his boots.

UNICEF delivered 25 tons of emergency medical supplies to the Ministry of Public Health at the Beirut international airport in response to the escalation of conflict in Lebanon. Credit: UNICEF/UNI657198/Fouad Choufany

By Oritro Karim
Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Attacks on Lebanon over the past two months, as instigated by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been increasingly indiscriminate. The Disaster Risk Management Unit at the Lebanese Council of Ministers confirmed that the death toll of Lebanese civilians has risen to over 2,530. Furthermore, Israel’s hostilities have led to casualties among United Nations (UN) personnel, which has been described as “violations of international law”.

Most recently, on the morning of October 23, the IDF coordinated an airstrike on the Lebanese port city of Tyre, mere hours after a series of airstrikes hit the suburbs of southern Beirut, decimating infrastructure. On October 22, Lebanese Cabinet member Nasser Yassin reported that Lebanon will need approximately 250 million dollars on a monthly basis to help the over 1 million displaced people due to the recent escalation in hostilities between Israel and Lebanon.

“Overnight we’ve seen more than 1 million people being displaced by the attacks, hostilities, by the aggression. And this is similar to an earthquake. You don’t see this number in scale and the speed of it, except in major natural disasters. And this is what happened in 48 hours,” said Yassin.

On October 21, an airstrike in southern Beirut destroyed several buildings within range of the Rafik Hariri University Hospital, the largest in Lebanon, and killed 18 civilians. Fears of future attacks on hospitals have spread among Lebanese civilians and officials. Daniel Hagari, spokesperson for the IDF, reported that the hospital contained a bunker with millions of dollars’ worth of cash and gold.

“One of our main targets last night was an underground vault with tens of millions of dollars in cash and gold. The money was being used to finance Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel. According to the estimates we have, there is at least half a billion dollars in dollar bills and gold stored in this bunker. This money could and still can be used to rebuild the state of Lebanon,” said Hagari.

Hospital director Mazen Alame told reporters that no such bunker exists. Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, has warned that any and all attacks involving hospitals are subject to thorough investigations.

On Tuesday October 22, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) detected over 1,417 projectiles that were fired south of the Blue Line, striking critical infrastructure in Al Matmurah, Al Qawzah, Aytaroun, Ett Taibe, Majdal Silim, Ghobeiry, and Khiam. The uptick in violence has led to Hezbollah taking a firmer stance, informing reporters that the conflict has reached a “new phase of escalation”. Political analysts such as Amal Saad predict that hostilities between the two parties will continue to rise in intensity.

“When you look at the bigger picture and you see in relative terms how Hezbollah has survived all this and been able to conduct such fierce resistance to an ongoing attempted invasion by the most powerful army in the Middle East, one can only conclude that Hezbollah is actually stronger than what we assumed it was. This might be a more ferocious Hezbollah that we’re seeing,” said Saad.

Reports from UNIFIL personnel indicate that peacekeeping missions along the border of Lebanon have grown increasingly difficult amid the escalation of airstrikes and ground incursions. On October 13, UNIFIL reported that the IDF breached one of their bases, firing several rounds 100 meters away from their position. 15 peacekeepers suffered injuries from smoke exposure.

UNIFIL issued a press statement on October 20, reporting that an IDF bulldozer had “deliberately demolished” a UN watchtower and perimeter fence. They reiterated that encroaching on UN positions and destroying UN assets constitute violations of international humanitarian law. Despite numerous security breaches and attacks on peacekeeping entities, UNIFIL maintains its positions in Lebanon, continuing to closely monitor and report Israeli offensives.

The UN and its affiliated organizations continue to provide support to affected communities in Lebanon. The World Food Programme (WFP) has been on the frontlines since “day one of the crisis”, distributing daily hot meals and food parcels to over 200,000 kitchens in Lebanon, and providing food assistance to nearly 150,000 Lebanese civilians who have fled to Syria.

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has delivered over 140 tons of medical supplies to medical facilities and first responders. UNICEF has also provided medical and psychosocial support to people across 50 shelters in Lebanon. They have also distributed essential supplies to displacement shelters, including hygiene kits, water sanitation supplies, bedding, supplements, baby food, and maternity kits.

UNICEF has also partnered with Lebanon’s Ministry of Education to provide educational resources for children to ensure that they maintain some form of schooling in the duration of this conflict.

In the beginning of October, the UN launched a flash appeal of 426 million dollars to provide assistance to impacted communities for the next three months. Continued funding and donor contributions will be crucial as attacks remain frequent.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: ESCAP Photo/Nur Hamidah

By Nur Hamidah, Rebecca Purba and Anna Amalia
BANGKOK, Thailand, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

Over half of Asia-Pacific’s population now live in cities. While urbanization brings people closer to opportunities and better services, many urban dwellers are also experiencing the adverse impacts of climate change such as floods, urban heat and infectious diseases. Urban activities are among the major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Consequently, building adequate capacities to adapt and promoting low-carbon and climate-resilient urban development are strategic priorities to reduce the region’s GHG emissions and safeguard its people. ESCAP, through the Urban-Act project, is supporting cities in Asia to identify important local actions to increase resilience and transition to climate-sensitive urban development.

Moving from business-as-usual to climate-sensitive development requires substantial investment and good enabling conditions. To meet Indonesia’s climate target, for example, the country needs ~USD 285 billion in total financing for 2018-2030 – a significant amount for a country facing a myriad of urbanization challenges.

In 2024, ESCAP and the Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance (CCFLA), assisted countries including Indonesia, to assess their national enabling conditions for urban climate finance.

The assessment evaluates four dimensions of the enabling conditions: climate policy, budget and finance, climate data, and vertical and horizontal coordination. In Indonesia, assessing national enabling conditions for subnational climate action in the urban context is part of an integrated approach to scale up climate action.

First, from the policy perspective, climate change is an important aspect of Indonesia’s national development. Climate-related targets gain prominence in the latest national medium-term development plan and will become even more so in the upcoming long-term development plan.

At the subnational level, however, the capacity to mainstream climate action varied. Lack of awareness, competing priorities and limited funding are among the main challenges that create significant gaps between budget allocation and achieving climate targets.

Second, despite the fiscal decentralization policy that allows subnational governments to manage their revenue and expenditures, reliance on central government transfers remains a common practice. In general, subnational governments face difficulties in generating revenue.

This reality exacerbates the challenge of allocating sufficient funding to build cities’ adaptive capacity and mitigate GHG emissions. Public-private partnership as a potential source of infrastructure financing has not made a significant contribution to subnational finance. Debt is not prevalent among subnational governments. Municipal bonds, introduced nearly twenty years ago, have not seen successful issuance by any subnational government.

A recent regulation on carbon pricing allows subnational governments to generate revenue from carbon trading, but effective implementation requires technical guidance and capacity building – a similar issue with thematic global climate funds.

Officials from cities participating in an Urban-Act workshop expressed that their cities received limited information about the mechanisms and had limited technical capacity to access the funds.

Third, Indonesia has developed several information systems facilitating subnational climate analysis and/or progress reporting, including AKSARA and National Registry System which record mitigation and adaptation activities, SIGN SMART records GHG emissions inventory at the provincial level, and SIDIK which allows analysis of adaptive capacity disaggregated at the village level.

Subject to data availability and quality, the analysis produced by these platforms could aid subnational governments in their development planning and efforts to access financing.

Finally, on vertical and horizontal coordination, Indonesia’s development planning forum, Musrembang, which fosters inclusive and participatory community discussions mandates for development aspirations to be discussed at all levels of government. However, the extent of climate discussions within these forums varies.

To improve conditions for Indonesian cities to access climate finance, there is a need for enhanced technical support to align subnational development planning and budgeting with national climate targets.

This includes strengthening institutional capacity to internalize climate adaptation and mitigation strategies into development programmes/activities, starting from understanding cities’ vulnerability to climate change and the major contributing sectors of GHG emissions all the way to monitoring and evaluation.

Such improvements would enable subnational governments to set measurable targets, prioritize actions, mobilize funding, and follow a clear and trackable roadmap. Policy to enable subnational governments to generate revenue from activities contributing to GHG emissions to finance climate action could be explored further. Incentives provision can also encourage private and subnational governments to move in this direction.

Climate data reporting platforms can be utilized and optimized better by encouraging more participation of subnational governments and relevant stakeholders – which should be accompanied by building technical capacity in data management to improve quality and evidence-based planning.

As climate change is a multistakeholder and multijurisdictional issue, national and subnational governments must facilitate cross-jurisdictional and collaborative urban climate actions to effectively tackle its potential impacts.

Climate action cannot be delayed any longer as the cost of inaction is far outweighing the cost of action. Assessing the enabling conditions at the national level is a crucial first step in understanding the challenges and opportunities of mobilizing urban climate finance. Member States can start by utilizing the tool to foster local climate actions.

Nur Hamidah is Urban Climate Change Specialist, ESCAP; Rebecca Purba is Associate Economic Affairs Officer, Environment and Development Division; Anna Amalia Senior Planner, Ministry of Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia.

Source: ESCAP

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Delegates from the Forum of Arab Parliamentarians on Population and Development and the Asian Population and Development Association met in Cairo to discuss support for people with disabilities and the elderly. Credit: APDA

By Hisham Allam
CAIRO, Oct 24 2024 (IPS)

In a significant move to address the challenges faced by people with disabilities and the elderly, six Egyptian parliamentary committees met in Cairo on October 12 to discuss national strategies and legislative efforts.

The Forum of Arab Parliamentarians on Population and Development and the Asian Population and Development Association (APDA), with support from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and the Government of Japan, organized the meeting with the focus of aligning Egypt’s policies with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Roughly 1.2 million people with disabilities currently receive state assistance, while Egypt’s elderly population continues to grow. According to the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), 10.64 percent of Egyptians have a disability, and the elderly population reached 9.3 million in 2024, representing 8.8 percent of the total population—4.6 million men (8.5 percent) and 4.7 million women (9.2 percent). The parliamentary committees convened to enhance support for these vulnerable groups.

Dr. Abdelhadi Al-Qasabi, Chairman of the Committee on Social Solidarity, Family, and People with Disabilities, emphasized recent legislative developments. He pointed out that Egypt has passed important legislation, such as the Elderly Care Law in 2024 and the Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2018, to safeguard these vulnerable groups. He underlined that these laws show the state’s adherence to the Egyptian Constitution, which upholds everyone’s right to a dignified life free from discrimination.

“Egypt has made significant strides by adopting policies and laws that protect and empower people with disabilities and the elderly,” stated Al-Qasabi. “We aim to ensure they are not only recipients of support but contributors to the nation’s progress.”

The “Karama” program of the Egyptian government, which offers financial aid to those with impairments, was the focus of the gathering. Egypt’s Minister of Social Solidarity, Dr. Maya Morsy, noted that the program, which has an annual budget of about 10 billion Egyptian pounds, currently serves 1.2 million people with 1.3 million integrated services cards distributed to make access to social services and healthcare easier.

“We are committed to ensuring that people with disabilities receive their integrated services cards within 30 days, enhancing their access to vital resources.”

Morsy emphasized the Elderly Care Law, which assures those over 65 have better access to social, economic, and healthcare services. “We aim to create an environment where the elderly can live independently, free from abuse or exploitation, while continuing to contribute to society,” she told the audience.

Dr. Hala Youssef, UNFPA Advisor, emphasized the need for international cooperation in meeting the SDGs and ensuring that no one falls behind.

Discussion at a conference under the auspices of the Forum of Arab Parliamentarians on Population and Development and the Asian Population and Development Association discussed the empowerment of people with disabilities and the elderly. Credit: APDA

“Parliamentarians play a strategic role in creating a legislative framework that addresses the needs of the most vulnerable,” Youssef added. “Innovation and technology can be powerful tools for inclusion, providing people with disabilities access to education, employment, and social participation on an equal footing.”

Youssef went on to emphasize disturbing global figures, stating that 46 percent of seniors over 60 have some type of handicap and that persons with disabilities were among the hardest struck during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Children with disabilities are four times more likely to experience violence than their peers, while adults with disabilities face higher risks of abuse and exploitation,” Youssef said, urging a stronger commitment to protecting their rights.

Dr. Sami Hashim, head of the Committee on Education and Scientific Research, stressed the integration of individuals with disabilities in the educational system. He emphasized that, especially in the age of artificial intelligence, education must be adaptable, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

“Our education system must not only teach knowledge but prepare individuals for success in an increasingly technological world,” said Hashim. “This is particularly important for students with disabilities, who should have access to the tools and opportunities that will allow them to thrive.”

The forum emphasized the critical need for national and international collaboration to build inclusive, egalitarian communities, given that 80% of the one billion persons with disabilities worldwide live in developing nations and that the number of older people in need of assistance is rising.
IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Empowering Women for a Green Future: AFPPD Conference Tackles Climate Change and Gender Equality
• Parliamentarians: Active Aging Enhanced By Using Artificial Intelligence
• Beyond the Farm: How Empowering Women Farmers Drives Change in Jordan and Beyond