By Andrew Norton
LONDON, Sep 20 2019 (IPS)

In an alarming imbalance struggling families in rural Bangladesh spend almost US$2 billion a year on preventing climate-related disasters or repairing damage caused by climate change ― far more than either the Bangladesh government or international bodies.

In the first report to measure household spending on climate change in any country compared to public climate finance, the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) reveals that rural families in Bangladesh, many of whom are living in poverty, are spending double the amount of the government, and nearly 12 times the amount Bangladesh receives in multilateral international climate financing in absolute terms, according to the latest data.

Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in the world and is among the most vulnerable to climate change and extreme weather events. The majority of its population, roughly two-thirds, lives in rural areas.

It is unacceptable that the most vulnerable people in the country are shouldering the burden of spending for adapting to climate change. Far too little support is being directed to the communities that are being most affected.

Much more needs to be done to make sure more public climate finance from the government and international community reaches the women, children and men who need it most.

‘Bearing the climate burden: how households in Bangladesh are spending too much’ shows that even though the Bangladesh government’s annual budget for addressing climate change in rural areas increased to US$1.46 billion (123.18 billion taka) in 2018-19 from US$884 million (74.32 billion taka) in 2014-15, it is still less than the amount rural households are spending due to climate change.

Rural households received an estimated total of US$154 million a year in international climate and disaster finance ― or US$6.42 (533 taka) for each rural household per year.

As a result of this disparity, households living in poverty are diverting money away from many of the basic necessities they need to live in order to address the effects of climate change, such as repairing damage to their homes, spending on ruined crops and building defences against damage.

This includes money they need to send their children to school, for healthcare and to put food on the table. As a result, we found that these families are having to turn to informal lenders who charge high interest rates, which is pushing them deeper into poverty. Low-cost loans from formal financial institutions and microfinance NGOs need to be made more widely available.

‘Bearing the climate burden’ also found that female-headed households spend three times more money as a share of their income than households headed by men. This important revelation shows that addressing the impacts of climate change is more of a priority for women, so it is crucial that extra support is directed to female-headed households.

Climate finance is a fundamental building block for tackling the emergency the world is facing. The high costs of climate change that developing countries face are largely as a result of other countries’ actions.

Recognising this in 2010, developed countries meeting in Cancun, Mexico committed to mobilise US$100 billion a year by 2020 to help address developing countries’ needs in tackling climate change. We are now just one year from this key deadline.

It is clear that, not only are governments falling short of this goal, but previous IIED research shows that less than US$1 in US$10 of international climate finance is being directed to the local level.

Plus, 93% of it is not transparent enough to track how it is being used. Because of a lack of transparency, often it is not possible to identify exactly what donor countries are investing their climate finance in. Reporting methods are hard for many to understand and often they are obscure, and the information provided too limited.

As a result, local priorities and the flexibility to respond both to rapidly changing needs and new opportunities are not being met. Changing this and making sure money reaches where it matters most is crucial for developing countries to be able to achieve the Paris Agreement’s targets for keeping temperature rise below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. It is vital that more climate finance is directed to the local level and that local people are included in designing programmes to ensure their priorities are met.

On 23 September, leaders from around the world will meet at the United Nations in New York for the Climate Action Summit. This is an opportunity for all governments to raise their commitments to tackle climate change. For the richer countries responsible for the bulk of historic emissions, this must include both meaningful commitments to deliver cuts in emissions, and a renewed determination to deliver support to those who need it most.

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 250 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story. 

Excerpt:

By Andrew Norton
LONDON, May 13 2019 (IPS)

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services’ report on the global state of biodiversity is shocking but not entirely surprising. The question is, how much more evidence and repeated warnings will it take for governments, companies and financial institutions to wake up to the urgency and act?

The accelerating destruction of nature and climate change are the twin emergencies threatening humanity today. There is no more time for inaction or delay ― the report’s findings are loud and clear.

The report lays out the scale of the unfolding crisis. Around one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, many within decades. Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about two-thirds of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions.

With new areas such as the high seas and Arctic increasingly accessible due to technological developments and climate change, this will increase if urgent and effective action is not taken.

We are all dependent on the rich diversity of nature for our quality of life – and ultimately for our survival. But our actions, from over-fishing to the pursuit of monocrops and the destruction of natural forests, are undermining the complex natural world at an unprecedented rate.

This is everybody’s problem. For years, the issue of biodiversity and its fate have been treated as niche subjects. But without stopping the acceleration of its destruction, none of the environmental and development challenges – from tackling climate change and upholding the Paris Agreement to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals – can be achieved.

Radical, comprehensive changes are needed to save the diversity of life on which we all depend. The climate crisis amplifies the threat to global biodiversity in multiple ways.

The accelerating die-back of coral reefs due to rising ocean temperatures is a striking example. Acting with urgency to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible is absolutely key to protecting nature and people alike.

Governments must act immediately to end the destructive subsidies, including for fossil fuels and industrial fishing and agriculture, which are driving us towards ecological collapse. These encourage the plundering of the land and ocean at the expense of a clean, healthy and diverse environment on which billions of women, children and men depend now and in the future.

The money saved should be used to support sustainable industries that provide livelihoods for men and women living in poverty, such as small-scale fisheries and give incentives for the preservation of the natural world on a global scale.

Such resources could be used to support a green jobs guarantee whereby people can be supported to work on both the energy transition and on maintaining landscapes that are carbon and biodiversity-rich, safeguard key habitats, and provide the multiple benefits to human society that come from healthy ecosystems.

Importantly, the report highlights the key role that indigenous peoples and local communities’ play in the fight to save nature. Although biodiversity is declining in their areas due to land being under increasing pressure from extractive industries, infrastructure development and agriculture, it is declining more slowly, reflecting the valuable role they play in the stewardship of the natural world.

It is imperative that greater attention is given to strengthening indigenous and local communities’ rights to manage their land and resources sustainably. They must be able to play an active part in all efforts to conserve biodiversity, while their right to use nature is protected.

People who are living in poverty are being disproportionately hit by the destruction of nature, which as the report shows, is accelerating faster than at any other time in human history. From rural women in poor countries who have the responsibility to gather wood for fuel, to people in informal settlements who are becoming more vulnerable to storm damage due to the loss of such natural barriers as mangroves, poverty goes hand-in-hand with precarious lives that are extremely vulnerable to ecological collapse.

It is crucial the progress that has been made in development is not undone by the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss and climate change.

The contribution that diverse nature and natural ecological systems make to development ― for both rich and poor ― needs to be included in economic decisions made by governments and business. Without it, development gains will increasingly be lost and ultimately, the foundations of our economies and societies will be threatened.

Excerpt:

Coral reef in Mexico. Credit: Mauricio Ramos/IPS

By Andrew Norton
LONDON, Sep 20 2018 (IPS)

The world’s first efforts to develop a way to govern the high seas – international waters beyond the 200 nautical mile national boundary – is truly underway. The initial round of negotiations at the United Nations has just ended after two weeks of talks.

On the face of it, given the importance and scale of the task, some may feel there has not been much progress. But it is significant that despite the range of views and interests in the room, all the member states of the UN engaging in this intergovernmental conference to ‘formulate a legally binding treaty to govern the conservation and use of biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction’ (BBNJ) remain committed to the process and the goal.

Although member states and civil society had expected a draft treaty to be presented for consideration, it wasn’t, and therefore the discussions were similar to previous preparatory committee meeting phases.

But the key points around what needs to be addressed are clear: ensuring fair access and ability to share the benefits of marine genetic resources; agreeing measures for marine protected areas so they benefit all; processes for establishing environmental impact assessments, and agreeing a mechanism for enabling developing countries to have access to the necessary technological means, including data (digital sequencing of marine organisms’ DNA, for example), to share the oceans’ benefits and become active stewards of the ocean.

None of the governance measures that currently tackle these issues extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the coast. There are fragmented regional initiatives such as the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic — the OSPAR Convention —but nothing that governs the high seas in its entirety.

Some governments including Russia, Iceland and Japan, feel that this is enough. But while regional treaties provide important governance mechanisms, no single treaty covers all the items currently on the BBNJ table or deals with the part of the ocean covering 50 per cent of the planet — the high seas.

There is a clear risk that lack of effective governance will play to the interests of richer countries that have the resources to exploit the biodiversity of the high seas and can proceed without benefit to the bulk of the world’s population. That is why IIED is working to support the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) negotiating group and negotiators from the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and other developing countries in the BBNJ process.

Limiting high seas governance to regional initiatives would mean nothing more than maintaining the status quo. We need to end this fragmentation of high seas governance and work towards establishing a fair and inclusive global instrument. It’s about sharing half of the planet with all of the world’s people.

All member states are keen to see a draft treaty text in the next BBNJ intergovernmental meeting that can be a focus for negotiations. There must also be more time to discuss cross-cutting issues, including financing, institutional arrangements and clarifying decision-making processes.

For the next round to be more effective we would also want to see the views of people affected by any agreed high seas management regime being central to negotiations. So that means a sustained and greater presence by the Least Developed Countries, other developing countries and Small Island Developing States at the negotiating table from Spring 2019 onwards.

This is early days, so despite slight frustration with the pace of progress, it’s important to remain optimistic. IIED will continue to provide on demand, real time support to the Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States and other developing countries’ negotiators. This first round is more than a step in the right direction, and we look forward to meeting again.

Excerpt: