UN lobby with images of former UN secretaries-generals. Credit: United Nations
 
With the deadline for candidates’ nominations now passed, four names are officially in the frame. Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence size up the candidates.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / SAN FRANCISCO, California, Apr 8 2026 (IPS)

Let the race begin!
April 1st was the deadline for candidates to be nominated for Secretary-General. Was it a coincidence that the deadline was April Fool’s Day? Judging by the quality of the official candidates, we suspect so.

Before looking at the four official finalists, however, it’s worth examining the state of global politics, since this will certainly have an impact on the likely outcome.

We are currently living in one of the most unstable times since the Second World War. Multilateralism is under threat and the UN is facing significant political and financial turbulence. To its credit, the UN is attempting to address these challenges through the UN80 process, which is trying to repurpose it for the years ahead. However, as the world becoming increasingly multipolar.

As the previous global order, shaped largely by the U.S. and its western allies, recedes into the rear-view mirror, there will still be plenty for a new Secretary General to do. In short, she or he will inherit an institution and a staff that is unclear about exactly what their future role should be.

One critical issue when looking at the candidates is to understand that any of the Permanent Five members of the powerful UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the UK, and the USA) can veto a candidate. Will any of them exercise that power? Recent history suggests they may. Russia in particular has recently increased its use of the veto, and the US and China have also done so on occasion, although the UK and France have not exercised their “rights” in several decades.

Do the P5 share the same outlook in terms of a future Secretary General? For better or worse, it looks increasingly like the “big five” are looking for more of a “Secretary” than a “General”. On that basis, finding common ground may be possible.

What’s more, there is a general expectation that the successful candidate will probably be from Latin America and the Caribbean. This is based on a general sense among UN member states that leadership rotates through the various regional groups and that it is Latin America and the Caribbean’s ‘turn’.

So far, there has been no public disagreement with this approach, although the regional rotations are considered more of a guideline than a hard rule, and there have been exceptions in the past. For instance, present UN Secretary General, António Guterres of Portugal, was appointed at a time when it was generally expected that the successful candidate would come from Eastern Europe.

Another consideration is gender. The last time a Secretary General was appointed, there was a strong push to appoint a woman. This did not happen, even though seven qualified women were nominated.

In the straw polls held prior to this hiring process, António Guterres was the only candidate who did not attract a veto. In part, this was because he was the most experienced candidate and the first former head of state to stand. However, calls for a woman leader are perhaps even stronger this time around, backed by a sense that such an appointment is long overdue.

So, who are the four official candidates, and what happens next?

The four candidates that have been nominated will each have a three-hour “hustings” on the 21st or 22nd of April, which will be available to view live on UN web TV.

The candidates are:

MICHELLE BACHELET
Nominated by Brazil and Mexico (although her own country, Chile, has withdrawn its support). Bachelet is a former President of Chile. Her party was the Socialist Party of Chile, which is a member of the Progressive Alliance. Her hustings appearance will be on April 21st 10am to 1pm Eastern time.

Advantages
Seniority: Bachelet has held the top job in Chile not once, but twice. Not only that, but she has also held two senior roles within the UN. Her experience has been at the highest level, and her networks are impressive. It is hard to imagine someone with a more appropriate mix of expertise.

UN Credentials: As a former head of both UN Women and the UN High Commission for Human Rights, Bachelet’s insider knowledge is considerable. She would know how to navigate the organization effectively from her first day in the job.

A Female Leader: Michelle Bachelet would be a strong candidate to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.

A Latina Leader: With the tradition that the UN Secretary-General is chosen by rotating through the various UN regions, Bachelet would likely satisfy those who believe it is Latin America and the Caribbean’s “turn” to nominate Guterres’ successor.

Proven Impact: There are few potential candidates who could point to such broad impact both as a national leader and during two separate stints in high-level UN roles, especially in the fields of human rights and supporting vulnerable populations. Given the unprecedented uncertainty swirling around international diplomacy these days, a figure with a reputation as a “doer” may be welcomed.

Disadvantages

Objections from the Big Five? Bachelet has made comments in the past, particularly during her time as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, that may not have been welcomed by specific UN member states. With her own country withdrawing its support for her, it may make difficulties for her candidacy.

In spite of Bachelet’s obvious credentials, if even one of the “Big Five” members of the Security Council shows sensitivity to her past human rights comments, Bachelet may have her work cut out to change their views. Still, her credentials are impressive and even opponents might have a hard time making a case against her.

RAFAEL GROSSI
Nominated by Argentina, Italy, and Paraguay, Grossi is the present Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He is an Argentine career diplomat. His hustings are on April 21st from 3pm to 6pm.

Advantages

Seniority: He has held the post of Argentina Ambassador to Austria, Belgium, Slovenia, Slovakia, and International Organizations in Vienna, and the permanent representative of the United Nations Office at Geneva. While not as politically senior as some of the competition, his track record in diplomacy is certainly strong.

UN Credentials: He is the current Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since December 3, 2019.

Proven Impact: Grossi has dealt with nuclear safety in conflict zones, doing shuttle diplomacy to maintain communications between warring parties. His work includes preventing nuclear accidents, particularly at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. He has also, through his “Atoms for Peace and Development”, modernized the IAEA, addressing issues of climate change, poverty, and fostering nuclear technology for development.

Latin Leader: Grossi also ticks the regional box, since he is from the Latin American and Caribbean Group.

Disadvantages

Objections from the Big Five? It’s hard to say. In spite of an exemplary record as a diplomat, in recent years Iranian officials accused him of aligning too closely with U.S. and Israeli interests. This is something Grossi’s supporters deny, and it is unclear how other in the P5, particularly China and Russia, might view the situation.

Not A Female Leader: Clearly not a woman, although it is unclear if this would be a deciding factor or deal breaker for the P5 under its current political leadership.

REBECCA GRYNSPAN
Grynspan was nominated by Costa Rica. She is the current Secretary-General of UNCTAD and a former Vice President of Costa Rica. She was a member of the National Liberation Party, which is a member of Socialist International. Hustings April 22nd, 10 am to 1 pm.

Advantages

Seniority: Grynspan may not have been a president or prime minister, but as Vice President of Costa Rica she climbed close to the summit of her country’s political mountain.

UN Experience: As the first female Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Grynspan has already broken one glass ceiling within the United Nations. She would also bring more than twenty years’ experience within the UN system, something that would surely be viewed as an asset during these uncertain times.

Additionally, she is familiar with the internal workings of the UN in Geneva, New York and across Latin America, giving her insights into decision making at both headquarters and regionally. This breadth of experience within the UN could be useful to any future UN leader.

Proven Impact: Grynspan is viewed as someone who can have an impact, a perception recognized by Forbes magazine, which named her among the 100 most powerful women in Central America four years running. She was also instrumental in the UN-brokered Black Sea Initiative, agreed by Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine, that has allowed millions of tons of grain and other foodstuffs to leave Ukraine’s ports, playing an important role in global food security.

Connections: Grynspan has had many years of experience operating at the regional and global levels. Her networks may arguably not be as wide as some other candidates’, but would still provide a good platform for her to succeed.

A Female Leader: Grynspan offers the chance to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.

Climate and the Environment: Although Grynspan has strong credentials on trade, finance and development, it is only in recent years that she has taken a higher profile on climate change and some of the other big environmental issues of our time. Interestingly, this may be an advantage at this moment in time, since more some P5 members are now either lukewarm or hostile to candidates with a progressive track record on climate change.

Disadvantages

Peace and Security: Peace, security, and conflict resolution have not featured prominently in her background. If the UN Security Council members are looking for expertise in this area, might Grynspan’s relative lack of experience be considered a possible weakness?

Name Recognition: Although she is widely respected in her fields and across the UN, Grynspan may not have the same sort of name recognition among the public as some of the other candidates.

Objections from the Big Five? How might Grynspan’s political background play out in the current politically-charged atmosphere? Will her center-left credentials find a sympathetic audience among the current P5, or might some in the current conservative US administration object?

MACKY SALL
Nominated by Burundi, Sall is the former President of Senegal and Chairman of the African Union. Politically, his party (Alliance for the Republic) is a member of Liberal International. Hustings April 22nd, from 3pm to 6pm.

Advantages

Seniority: As the former President of Senegal (2012-2024) and former Prime Minister (2004-2007), he has the seniority that a UN Secretary General might well need these days.

Proven Impact: As Chairperson of the African Union, he succeeded in lobbying for the AU to join the G20. He has mediated in regional crises.

Objections from the Big Five? Sall is a center-right politician known to have forged positive ties with France’s Emmanual Macron. Will a right-wing administration in the US be drawn to a candidate also on the conservative side of the political spectrum?

Disadvantages

UN Credentials: Sall cannot claim strong UN credentials, but has been the chairperson of the African Union and a Special Envoy for the Paris Pact for the People and the Planet.

Not A Female Leader: While he would disappoint the many voices calling for the next UN head to be a woman, it’s unclear that would be a reason for any of the P5 to veto.

Not from Latin America: How important is it that the next Secretary-General be from the Latin American and Caribbean Group? At this point, it is hard to say if rotating around the regions “fairly” will be a big issue for members states. As noted earlier, it was not a deal breaker last time around.

A Late Entrant?

What if all four official candidates fail to win over the P5? We have seen in the past that new candidates appear after the nomination deadline. In fact, the process was only truly formalized as recently as 2015. Before that, the selection of a new UN leader was known for being opaque and characterized by back-room discussions and P5 deal making.

If consensus among the P5 cannot be reached, other candidates must emerge. Possibilities from the Latin American and Caribbean Group might include Ivonne Baki (Ecuador), Alicia Bárcena (Mexico), David Choquehuanca (Bolivia), María Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Mia Mottley (Barbados), and Achim Steiner (Brazil).

There may also be interest from beyond the region, such as Amina Mohammed (Nigeria), who is the UN’s current Deputy Secretary-General. Additionally, Kristalina Georgieva (Bulgaria) and Vuk Jeremić (Serbia)—both former center-right European politicians with strong international credentials—have also been mentioned.

However, if the four official candidates all fail to find favor, then appointing a successor that all the P5 can agree on may take some deft diplomatic manoeuvring. At this point, the outcome of such haggling is pretty much anyone’s guess.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have been involved with UN policy making since the 1990s. They recently wrote Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet (Routledge, 2025) and co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Following Achim Steiner’s June 2025 departure, the questions loom: Who will replace him? What sort of person does UNDP need? And why does it even matter? Credit: Shutterstock

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Aug 22 2025 (IPS)

In June this year, UNDP bade farewell to Achim Steiner. The ninth Administrator in UNDP’s history had completed a second four-year term in office.

Who will replace him? According to our sources, several strong candidates applied for the post by the June 9 deadline. Regional consultations are now taking place to figure out who will get the nod. In the meantime, UNDP’s deputy head, Haoliang Xu, has been serving as acting Administrator since June 17.

What sort of person does UNDP need? And why does it even matter?

Difficult Political World

The current political landscape has become widely polarized, marked by increased division and negativity, both within countries and globally. This is fueled by factors such as partisan polarization among policymakers and the electorate, as well as growing public dissatisfaction with the performance of democratic institutions and multilateral institutions. Some of this has been fueled by external forces seeking to undermine democracies; some of it is a result of bitter internal feuds and wide ideological differences.

The Global Risk 2025 World Economic Forum identified several risks:

• Declining optimism
• Deepening geopolitical and geoeconomic tensions
• A growing sense of societal fragmentation
• Environmental risks – from long-term concern to urgent reality
• Technological risks – considered still partially “under the radar”

Coupled to this, there is a shrinking in overseas development aid from Western countries and the impact of many regional conflicts, as well as the damaging legacy of the recent Covid-19 pandemic, and a slowing in progress global in terms of human development. Given this backdrop of global challenges and extreme uncertainty, the next leader of UNDP will certainly have their work cut out.

The Qualities of a Leader: The Times They Are A-Changin’

As the key decision-makers assess candidates, we hope “change management” is high on their list of qualities. With global geopolitics in a state of flux and UN funding under severe pressure, UNDP’s next leader will have to exhibit calm under pressure, an ability to build relationships across various political divides, and an aptitude for handling internal change management as the UN wrestles with its funding crisis.

Meanwhile, there is also a challenge over how UNDP should navigate its role vis-à-vis the World Bank and the growing involvement of various regional development banks in its sphere of work. Taken all together, this is a tall order.

We believe it is very important a future leader gets the internal changes right. UNDP’s remit is broad. From helping countries tackle poverty and inequality, to promoting sustainable development, human rights, women’s empowerment, and democratic governance, the role covers a lot of ground.

Who gets to decide who the new boss will be? Technically, the decision lies with the UN Secretary-General. However, his nomination requires confirmation by the UN General Assembly, and comes only after consulting with the UNDP Executive Board.

This board consists of representatives from 36 countries who serve on a rotating basis. Current board members include China, India, Brazil, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US—some “heavy hitters” who will undoubtedly have a variety of strong views on the matter.

Possible Candidates

Candidates that are rumored to have applied include:

Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand): This one is (to the best of our knowledge) an unconfirmed rumor. But if selected, the well-known former Prime Minister of New Zealand would follow in the footsteps of Helen Clark, another former New Zealand leader, who served as UNDP head from 2009-2017. Although highly regarded, could Ardern’s left-of-center politics prove an obstacle in these fractured political times?

Alexander De Croo (Belgium): A politician of Europe’s center/center-right, this former Belgian Prime Minister is believed to have been nominated before the June deadline and is considered in-the-running for the job.

Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica): This former Vice President of Costa Rica has held several high-profile roles within the UN system, including Secretary-General of UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). She is from the National Liberation Party in Costa Rica, a social democratic party.

Izumi Nakamitsu (Japan): Japanese national Nakamitsu has a long history of involvement with the UN and is a seasoned diplomat. Currently, she serves as UN Under-Secretary-General of Disarmament.

Bård Vegar Solhjell (Norway): The Norwegian government has apparently nominated the former left-wing Environment Minister as its candidate. He was active in the “No to the EU” campaign in Norway.

Jens Christian Wandel (Denmark): Another candidate with a wide range of UN experience, Wandel was recently appointed a Special Adviser on Reforms to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, with responsibility for an internal review of current reforms and their implementation.

Chrysoula Zacharopoulou (France): A former French Minister of State for Development, Francophonie and International Partnerships, centrist politician Zacharopoulou is also being considered for the position.

Whoever is appointed will need to hit the ground running. Succeed, and UNDP’s role could be elevated in a way it arguably has not been since the 1990s. Fail, and the organization risks irrelevance at a time when it is needed more than ever.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental and sustainable development negotiations since the 1990s. Their latest book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, was published in June 2025.

Excerpt:

The shift towards clean energy, such as solar power, is accelerating globally. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres declares fossil fuel era is fading; presses nations for new climate plans before COP30 summit. Credit: UNEP/Reza Shahriar Rahman

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Aug 4 2025 (IPS)

There is no question that most climate activists and governments were delighted when Brazil offered to host the 2025 UN Climate Conference taking place this November.

Brazil has played such a crucial role in shaping the sustainable development agenda. It hosted the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, which agreed on Agenda 21 and the blueprint for sustainability in the 21st century, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, 27 principles intended to guide countries in future sustainable development but also saw signed agreements for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Forestry Principles.

Out of the Rio Earth Summit, you saw the creation of a new UN body to monitor the implementation of these agreements. This was the UN Commission on Sustainable Development and a new convention, the Desertification Convention (UNCCD), negotiated within two years, which, along with the UNFCCC and UN CBD, became known as the Rio Conventions.

What is perhaps not appreciated is that it also kicked off what became the Straddling Fish Stocks Agreement (signed 1995, came into force 2001), the Persistent Organic Pollutants (signed in 2001 and came into force in 2004, and the Prior Informed Consent Conventions (signed in 1998 and came into force in 2004).

In 2012, Brazil also hosted Rio+20, which upgraded UNEP’s governing body to a universal body – the United Nations Environment Assembly– and also converted the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to the UN High-Level Political Forum. Rio+20 was also the birthplace of the process that led to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals.

There are also references to the other SDG areas throughout the text. We mention this to underscore the significant role Brazil has played in shaping the agenda for sustainable development.

Belém’s Time to Shine
Both the 1992 and 2012 UN Conferences were held in Rio de Janeiro, in part because the number of participants could easily be accommodated in the available hotels.

In 1992, an estimated 38,000 people attended, with an additional 16,000 attending the NGO Forum. The Rio+20 conference welcomed over 45,000 attendees.

This time around, the Brazilian Government decided to host the UN Climate Summit, COP 30, in Belém. Arguably, the logic is sound: the city is located in the eastern Amazon, making it the perfect place to talk about climate change and Brazil’s commitment to protecting a rainforest so vast it has been called the “lungs of the Earth”. Symbolically, the decision to hold COP30 in Belém is perfectly sensible.

But the choice of city has also courted controversy.

In fact, there is no question that many delegates and other stakeholders attending the UN’s preparatory meeting in Bonn in June were not happy that Belém is to be the host city.

Why? It all comes down to the limitations facing any small city. Estimates vary, but Belém there are only 7,900 rooms in hotels available, and the Brazilian team is trying their best to deal with the expectation of the numbers coming from adding cruise ships (4,000 rooms), Airbnb or short-term lets (16,500 rooms), and the conversion of schools.

This is nowhere near enough for a UN Climate Summit of this scale and magnitude.

Reuters reported that COP30 President Correla said they had more than 30,000 rooms, compared to an estimate of 20,000 that UN officials had stated Brazil was required to provide. To provide some perspective, here are the last five COP numbers. These exclude those that did not have access to the UN meeting but attended what is called the “Green Zone”. In most countries hosting a COP, the Green Zone is used to promote sustainable development activities to the country’s public and those that do not have access to the main event.

A guide to the number who may want to attend might be obtained by taking an average of the last four COPs. It’s clear that, since Glasgow, numbers have increased considerably. If we take the average of the previous four COPs, we might expect a Brazilian COP to attract around 58,000 people.

These kinds of numbers far outstrip Belém’s ability to cope. What’s more, the limited supply of rooms is reportedly already having a dramatic impact on prices, pushing rates over $ 1,000 a night in many cases. This is especially bad news for small delegations from poorer nations, as well as other essential stakeholders, including Indigenous peoples’ groups and nonprofits, which may not have the deep pockets of some wealthier nations.

Belém and the Brazilian hosts are pulling out all the stops to meet demand. They have brought in two cruise ships with 6,000 additional beds, which they have promised to make available to delegates from developing countries at lower prices. They are actively working on adding capacity through Airbnb and converting schools and other venues into temporary accommodation.

And according to a recent New York Times report, they are even converting “love hotels”—no-frills rooms serve as “a backdrop for lunch-hour trysts, clandestine affairs and passion struck lovers seeking some privacy”—into regular hotels by removing “erotic” apparatus such as (believe it or not!) stripper poles.

Even with such creative solutions in play, however, many worry there will still be a shortage of accommodation.

A Big Tent
Why does this matter? After all, some believe the COPs are getting too big. Critics of mega-Summits point out, quite rightly, that these enormous meetings create logistical nightmares. Not only that, but they note, again correctly, that only a few thousand people out of the tens of thousands who attend are involved in the UN negotiations. Why do we need all the others there?

Furthermore, with climate change under attack from fossil fuel lobbyists and a small but growing number of sympathetic politicians worldwide, some governments are reducing their climate commitments rather than increasing them. Won’t delegations be smaller if governments are less committed?

There is, however, a counterargument to this. In our view, the vast majority of the public—and most governments—remain firmly committed to addressing the existential threat climate change poses. Because of this, we believe the world needs opportunities for people to come together in large numbers and demonstrate their commitment and resolve.

The COP30 in Brazil could have provided that. Arguably, it ought to have been a record-breaking event with massive engagement from Indigenous peoples’ organizations, community-based groups, and more traditional stakeholders.

It might have energized concerned citizens and climate activists to create a shared narrative to take back and challenge the growing opposition to action. Of course, some of that will still happen in Belém, whether it attracts (and can accommodate) 20,000 or 30,000 or even more. However, given the small city’s accommodation limitations, it will not reach the level it might have done.

A Better Way?
While it’s too late to change the venue for COP30, perhaps a new system needs to be considered? We would welcome a process where the UN assesses possible options the host country is considering. Such an assessment could then go to the COP Bureau and a decision be taken in coordination with the host country.

This might help avoid any disconnect between the numbers wishing to attend and those who can realistically be accommodated, doesn’t happen again.

A good example of this type of process was the transparent approach by South Africa for the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development. In this case, the South African government allowed cities to bid. Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg duly applied.

The government then published the relevant information, and the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs conducted a review of the cities through a fact-finding visit. Ultimately, it was determined that only Johannesburg could accommodate the 37,000 people who officially attended. Again, there were even more people involved in related events that also took place in the city at the same time.

Türkiye and Australia: Planning for COP31
Looking to the future, let’s consider COP31: the two countries that are hoping to host COP31 are Australia and Türkiye.

For Australia, Melbourne has an estimated 26,500 hotel rooms, while Sydney has 43,000 rooms and Brisbane has around 21,000, and is reportedly building another 3,000. Meanwhile, Perth has 16,000, Adelaide 10,000, and Canberra around 7500. Realistically, this likely means Sydney or (possibly) Melbourne or Brisbane might have the capacity to host an event of this size.

For Türkiye, the mega-city of Istanbul boasts the most capacity, with estimates ranging from 75,000 to over 200,000 rooms; easily enough for a COP. Accurate figures for other Turkish cities, such as Ankara and İzmir, are difficult to obtain. However, these types of data should guide the COP31 Bureau and the host country.

There are, of course, additional issues for a host country and city that need to be addressed, such as transport, the size of the conference centre, and access to enough cafes and other foot outlets at the venue, , including vegetarian and vegan options.

Implementation Time

Another change we would like to see happen in the climate process is both logistical and substantive. As COP30 President, Brazil is developing a much-needed process within the delegates’ “Blue Zone” to focus on implementation of the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. With Brazil’s strong reputation for diplomatic creativity, perhaps this innovation should not come as a surprise. However, it should certainly be welcomed.

Future Presidencies should build on this. We need COPs to rapidly ramp up the focus on implementation if we are to keep well under within two degrees, and preferably under 1.5, by the end of the century. An enhanced Blue Zone should also be the home for inspiring projects and coalitions focused not on policy but on implementing what we already have. As former US President Barack Obama once said:

“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it.”

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. Their latest book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, was published in June 2025.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, Jul 14 2025 (IPS)

“Never let a good crisis go to waste.” Winston Churchill’s famous maxim feels very relevant today, when multilateralism and many environmental causes seem to be in retreat. We now face a triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.

Yet, the existing international environmental agreements and science bodies are not addressing these interconnected crises as effectively as they could. Can we turn the current situation into an opportunity for positive change and progress?

Despite the rise in geopolitical fragmentation-or perhaps because of it—many countries appear to be as invested as ever in international cooperation and diplomacy as a means to achieve progress. To take a recent example, last month, negotiators at a meeting in Uruguay agreed to establish a scientific panel on chemicals, waste, and pollution.

Not all bad news

This new panel, which will be known as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste and Pollution (ISP-CWP) will become the third scientific panel of its kind, joining the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up in 1988, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), established in 2012.

Both IPCC and IPBES have been hugely important in informing and driving international policy development around climate change and biodiversity. Now, ISP-CWP has an opportunity to do the same for chemicals, waste, and pollution.

The creation of the third science body also provides a much-needed link to public health concerns such as the quality of our air, water and soil. Having access to better scientific information and analysis could be a game-changer.

Even the ever-fractious climate negotiations saw some progress recently. The latest UN climate meeting in Bonn experienced just as many difficult moments as its predecessors, with arguments over seemingly trivial matters, such as the agenda. On the other hand, there was genuine progress on how to manage adaptation funding in the future, and apparently a very positive event on oceans and climate change on the margins of the meeting.

Speaking of oceans, another sign of multilateralism’s resilience was evident last month at the UN Ocean Conference in France, where 18 countries announced that they had ratified the High Seas Treaty. The agreement, which aims to protect marine life in international waters, now has 49 ratifications, only 11 short of the number needed for it to enter into force.

Meanwhile, a working group on the Montreal Protocol is meeting in Thailand this week to continue its ongoing, long-term work on protecting the ozone layer. Early signs indicate that the collaborative and positive spirit that has often characterized these talks shows no signs of abating.

It is also hoped in August that the negotiations to conclude the plastics convention will be finalized.

Funding Fights

At the same time, the growing geopolitical tensions of today are undeniable. This is set to fundamentally alter the political and sustainable development landscape, with distinct roles emerging for the US and China.

The US is choosing to pull back or limit its global presence in certain areas, which may open up opportunities for others, particularly China, India, Brazil, and South Africa and other emerging economies such as Türkiye and Indonesia.

Some prominent governments led by the United States have recently voiced skepticism about both the UN’s effectiveness and environmental causes like climate change. Furthermore, the UN’s funding is falling for the first time in its 80-year history, with the US as of the end of 2024 owing $668 million.

Clustering as a Vision

What should be the response to the daunting challenges facing the multilateral system, from funding cuts to growing scepticism from some key actors? In the environmental realm, clustering key conventions and bringing scientific bodies together would be good steps, offering opportunities to strengthen international environmental governance, while also offering potential cost savings.

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is an obvious choice for such clustering. UNEP is tasked with being: “The leading global authority on the environment. It unites 193 Member States in an effort to find solutions to climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste, collectively known as the triple planetary crisis.” (UNEP, 2025)

Furthermore, UNEP has played a long-established role in advancing both scientific and policy linkages. It already produces the flagship UN report on the environment, the Global Environment Outlook (GEO), with GEO-7 scheduled for release later this year.

Currently, however, other key science groups, such as the IPCC, IPBES, and ISP-CWP, operate independently. These different groups should not operate in silos. Is there a benefit to bringing the science bodies closer to UNEP – with them playing a facilitating role?

UNEP is the policy and normative body of the UN system, utilising its convening power to bring together the various bodies working on environmental issues. And yet, there is a feeling among some involved in this world that UNEP is not fully empowered to play this role effectively.

The UN Environment Assembly plays a valuable role, yet it convenes only once every two years with the world facing such environmental challenges. Is it time to reinstitute the Global Ministerial Forum in the other year?

It could play a role as a forum for addressing the interlinkage between various environmental treaties and offer a place for scientific bodies to inform member states collectively about the challenges we are facing.

We suggest strengthening UNEP as part of the broader “UN80” reform process, launched recently by UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Currently, there are hundreds of different multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in force but perhaps only 20-30 core global MEAs with broad international participation. Although many were established under UNEP, as they were ratified, they developed their governing bodies and operated independently from UNEP.

This is particularly noticeable when it comes to treaties addressing the triple planetary crises of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste. Arguably, UNEP is not at the center of any of these issues. But it should be.

Today, we have a fragmented set of environmental conventions with overlapping work, increased inefficiencies, and gaps, even though the issues they address are often interconnected. This fragmentation makes it more challenging to see the benefits that could occur from synergies and linkages between the various conventions. It reduces the UNEP’s ability to be the global voice for the environment, which is so sorely needed.

Arguments for consolidating and coordinating our global policy response to environmental challenges are not new. Klaus Toepfer, who ran UNEP from 1998-2006, was one of the first to call for clustering the key environmental conventions. In fact, he and his successor, Achim Steiner, made some progress on this, with a decision to link the work and meetings of three chemicals-related treaties—the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions. They now operate through a common meeting often referred to as a ‘Super COP’. So, we have a model to use learning both the positive and negative to help clustering in the areas of climate change and biodiversity.

As early as 2001, a UNEP working group on governance identified the potential for closer cooperation in areas such as capacity-building and information sharing. In 2002, UNEP’s Governing Council specifically supported clustering measures and pilot projects to test their effectiveness. This move aimed to facilitate an integrated life-cycle approach to managing substances covered by these conventions.

It found that the “clustering approach to multilateral environmental agreements holds some promise, and issues relating to the location of secretariats, meeting agendas and also programmatic cooperation between such bodies and with UNEP should be addressed.” (UNEP, 2002)

Synergies and linkages in the field of scientific assessments also hold some potential. UNEP could help ensure that the IPCC, IPBES, and the new ISP-CWP do not operate in silos.

Stronger Together?

The recent report for the UN Secretary General on reform suggested bringing the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) under UNEP’s purview.

Currently, the UNFCCC is a “big dog” in the environmental sphere, over which UNEP has no administrative responsibility, as the UNFCCC originated from a General Assembly resolution rather than a UNEP process.

A move to bring the UNFCCC under UNEP might meet with considerable resistance and objections. But there could well be benefits. Clustering the secretariats and science bodies of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste, could potentially lead to:

enhanced policy coordination
greater resource efficiency
streamlined reporting and compliance
improved stakeholder engagement
a stronger focus on cross-cutting issues
coordinated monitoring and evaluation
increased political momentum

In short, a stronger UNEP, positioned at the heart of the treaties and the science dealing with the triple planetary crisis, could offer both synergies and cost savings but more important it would give a huge opportunity for a stronger environmental voice in this increasingly insecure world.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN negotiations on the environment and sustainable development since the 1990s. Their new book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is out now (Routledge, 2025).

Dodds and Spence also co-wrote and edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy in 2022.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The world needs the UN, now more than ever. But we have also experienced firsthand how maddeningly inefficient and bureaucratic it can be. No wonder some critics want to defund it, the authors argue. Credit: United Nations

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, US, May 16 2025 (IPS)

The United Nations has been called many things in its time:

• A champion of human rights.
• The world’s peacekeeper and provider of disaster relief.
• A leader on climate change, sustainable development, cutting poverty, and combating disease.
• The world’s single most important organization.

But also:

• Bureaucratic.
• Byzantine.
• Disorganized.
• Duplicative.
• Fragmented.
• Frustrating.

Which is it?

The correct answer is, probably both. In our opinion, the UN is essential. Its role over the past 80 years has been critical in so many ways. As we argue in our books, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy (2022) and Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations (2025) the world needs the UN, now more than ever.

But we have also experienced firsthand how maddeningly inefficient and bureaucratic it can be. No wonder some critics want to defund it.

Unlike some previous efforts at UN reform that have petered out—often because governments and various UN entities could not agree on their implementation—this time the UN seems to have no choice but to adapt. For the first time in its history, funding is likely to fall. The years of growth are clearly over. Budgets will soon need to be cut. Already, funding shortfalls are starting to bite

One of the problems for the United Nations has been the expectations surrounding it. With every new global challenge—from decolonization to climate change—the organization’s mandate has grown.

The United Nations feels both too big and too small. After ongoing budgetary growth for the best part of 80 years, it is sufficiently big that many expect it to be able to deal with anything that comes its way. The UN system as a whole has revenue of more than US$74 billion—bigger than many countries. However, the UN’s regular (core) budget is relatively small: $3.72 billion for 2025. What’s more, it has generally only gone up by the cost of inflation for the last thirty years.

Where does the rest of the money go? A lot is dedicated to helping developing countries with their humanitarian, development, and environmental work. In addition, there is a peacekeeping budget that pays for UN peacekeeping forces. This budget is currently $5.6 billion.

Another expense relates to UN programmes focusing on specific topics, such as development (UNDP), environmental protection (UNEP), or humanitarian aid (UNHCR).

These programmes are funded through voluntary contributions from governments, and are managed through the specific UN programme’s dedicated governing bodies. UN agencies are also technically separate from the “core” UN; they select their own leaders and have their own governing bodies.

Cuts Are Coming

Together, these many UN entities undertake a lot of activities. They also cost a lot. Now, however, many governments are reducing their aid budgets and several, including the US, are making wholesale cuts to their UN funding. This means change is coming whether the organization likes it or not.

Unlike some previous efforts at UN reform that have petered out—often because governments and various UN entities could not agree on their implementation—this time the UN seems to have no choice but to adapt. For the first time in its history, funding is likely to fall. The years of growth are clearly over. Budgets will soon need to be cut. Already, funding shortfalls are starting to bite.

UN member states (that is, governments) are assessed for annual UN “contributions” based on a formula that considers their national income and various other factors. But what if governments don’t pay what they owe?

By April 30, 2025, unpaid “assessments” (money owed to the UN by individual countries) stood at US$2.4 billion, with the US owing $1.5 billion, China around $600 million, and Russia more than $70 million. On top of that, the peacekeeping budget was $2.7 billion in arrears. In 2024, 41 countries did not pay their mandated contributions.

In March 2025, UN Secretary-General António Guterres launched “UN80”, a review that seeks to make sure the institution continues to be fit-for-purpose as it looks towards a financially-straightened future. So far, everything seems to be on the table: his review is examining operational efficiency, how the organization’s key tasks or missions are implemented, and major structural reforms.

The Secretary-General has acknowledged criticism about major overlaps between UN agencies and programmes, as well as inefficiencies, spiraling costs, fragmentation, outdated working methods, and the rapid growth in high-level managerial and executive jobs within the system.

He is considering major changes, such as merging multiple departments, agencies and groups into a much smaller number that would each cover a major area like Peace and Security, Humanitarian Affairs, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development.

Currently, many entities have overlapping responsibilities in each of these areas and there are literally dozens of different groups active in each one.

Such mergers seem sensible and long overdue. Internally, it will likely cause a lot of anguish and stress among staff, since it will certainly result in layoffs. This must be undertaken with a pro-staff approach; many who work for the UN have devoted their lives to the organization, and any staff changes should try to respect their service.

Sadly, the cuts in funding mean a certain level of job losses are inevitable. That said, we believe it is far better for the UN to take on the challenge intentionally and with the clear goal of improving the organization’s efficiency and impact, than for it to adopt a “defensive” posture and resist change while funding falls anyway.

Are there ways some cuts could be offset by finding additional ways to fund the UN and its various activities? While these are unlikely in the short term, it is worth actively considering what new income streams might be possible and how they could play a role in funding new or existing mandates. In future, any new activity or mandate being considered by the UN should certainly include a clearly-funded budget.

A Sustainable United Nations?

A major lens we would like to see applied to any reform is judging the UN’s activities by its areas of comparative advantage. What are activities the UN does better than anyone else? Conversely, in what areas does the UN underperform, or even duplicate, others? Are there areas the UN adds so little value that it should exit altogether? UN leadership will need to be clear-eyed about the realities of this as they look at the changes needed.

One area in which we believe the UN excels is in coordinating international action on topics that go beyond national boundaries. This includes sustainable development and major environmental crises like climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss. As we argue in our books and previous articles, the UN’s convening power has made a huge difference in trying to tackle these complex, global challenges.

Even here, however, improvements can be made. For instance, might it be possible to consolidate the many UN entities dealing with issues of sustainable development and the environment? Currently, there are several dozen, including DESA, FAO, IFAD, UNDRR, UNDP, UNESCO, UN-Habitat, UNIDO, and many others.

At this point, it may be easier for the UN Secretary-General to start by reforming the UN secretariats and programmes rather than the UN “agencies” (such as FAO, ILO, UNESCO, and WHO). This is because UN agencies often have wider mandates, more complex structures, greater autonomy, and longstanding support from vested interests. So, it may be more practical to start with parts of the system that can be easier to change and rationalize.

In addition to potential consolidation, are there savings to be had by shifting to lower cost centers? This could include building up UN headquarters in places like Nairobi, where UNEP and UN-Habitat are located, and which is more affordable than, say, Geneva or New York.

Shifting programmatic work to the UN regional commission headquarters in places like Chile, Ethiopia, and Thailand may also save money. In Europe, it may be worth considering whether there are less expensive options than Geneva or Paris (both in the top ten cities globally for costs), compared with, say, Bonn, where the UN’s climate secretariat, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and some smaller UN bodies such as UN Volunteers, are located.

Even within specific areas like the UN’s climate change work, there are multiple mandates, overlaps, and ongoing questions. Should the UN’s climate secretariat in Bonn be brought under the umbrella of the UN Environment Programme, for instance?

The UNFCCC has a policy-making mandate, but can the scope and scale of the UN negotiations on climate change be pared back, especially now we are supposed to be largely finished with negotiations and focused on implementation?

For instance, could we change how the annual UN climate summits (also known as “COPs”) are organized, so that the “Blue Zone”, which is the UN-controlled area set aside for diplomatic negotiations, incorporates the Action Agenda of Implementation, a voluntary initiative launched in 2021 that includes a broader group of stakeholders. This might be more inclusive, and could help us move away from the technical, government-to-government negotiations that we are supposed to have largely concluded by now.

The UN climate treaty (UNFCCC) is also the only so-called “Rio” treaty (the others deal with biodiversity and desertification) not under UNEP’s purview. Bringing the UNFCCC under UNEP would enable better coordination between the Rio Conventions and move towards the clustering of environmental conventions. This was actually proposed as far back as the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development.

UNEP has prior experience in working to better coordinate among different environmental treaties: it oversaw the clustering of the various chemical-related conventions and the beginning of the clustering of the biodiversity-related treaties, too. If UNEP was empowered to coordinate the chemicals, biodiversity and climate conventions, it could save funds and ensure better and more effective delivery.

Elsewhere, what about merging UNAIDS (the UN program on HIV/AIDS) within a large body, like the World Health Organization or UN Development Programme? A fit with the WHO seems particularly logical to us. Should UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) also join together? Again, this may bring internal difficulties, but in times of financial duress it seems worthy of consideration.

The idea of better coordination between UNEP and UN-Habitat on sustainable urban development also seems rational. Could this be taken a step further into a merger? UN-Habitat was once part of UNDP, but nowadays it focuses a lot on sustainable development at the local level. This is an important task, but can it have the impact it needs as a smallish, standalone programme, or would it be better off inside a bigger entity?

Making the SDGs Sustainable

Although this review doesn’t seem to be focused on the bodies that govern UN entities, we would like to see a review in this area. Perhaps the new UN Secretary-General, who is due to be named in 2026 and start work in 2027, could look at these bodies as a part of a high-level panel? Such an outcome could be part of the review of the Sustainable Development Agenda, which is slated to start in 2027 in the lead-up to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) Summit in 2030.

There are also questions to be asked about whether the UN High-Level Political Forum is fit for purpose? As the UN’s chief platform for monitoring and assessing implementation of the SDGs, the HLPF seems to have lost political support over the past few years.

In part, this is because its policymaking is predominantly done before the “main event” in July, meaning stakeholders have great difficulty attending and engaging with government delegates while the detailed work is being done.

Before the HLPF was established in 2013, the previous UN body responsible for sustainable development was the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD). Its preparatory policymaking occurred over two weeks every February or March, before it met again in April, May, or June to finalize policy. It had an approach of reviewing the implementation and the policy year, centered on developing recommendations and strategies to overcome challenges.

Perhaps this model might be a better one? Or perhaps a Council of the UN General Assembly similar to the Human Rights Council should be considered? This may be too “in the weeds” for the Secretary-General’s UN80 review to take on, but the process of reviewing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in the coming years should certainly look at these two options.

In the meantime, we hope the UN Secretary-General will use this moment of financial duress as an opportunity to revitalize the organization, take the hard decisions needed, and leave the UN leaner, more effective, and more fit-for-purpose when he departs in late 2026 than when he took on the role back in 2017. In this increasingly complex and insecure world, a leaner, more focused and politically-supported UN can and should take a leading role not only in addressing key challenges in the years ahead, but in pursuing its long-term vision of a more sustainable, just and fair world for all.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN negotiations on the environment and sustainable development since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is scheduled for release in June 2025.

Excerpt:

UN Photo/Manuel Elías With the multilateral system fracturing more by the day, is it time to declare the Sustainable Development Goals dead?. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCICO, California / APEX, North Carolina , Apr 15 2025 (IPS)

Is it only a decade since the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement on climate change were agreed? The two deals were inked to a groundswell of hope.

The world had come together and reached consensus on how to tackle some of the world’s biggest challenges. A collaborative spirit was in the air.

Fast forward ten years and it feels like a century has passed and we’ve fallen over the abyss into
an alternate reality.

When he was elected for a second term, President Donald Trump promised extraordinary, history-making change. Whether you support his world view or not, no one can deny he has been true to his word. The previous multilateral consensus is shattered.

With tit-for-tat tariff escalation, cuts in overseas aid, a rise in regionalism and the return of transactional, ‘might makes right’ geopolitics, everything has changed. The old, postwar international order is fading.

Even before the dramatic changes of the past few months, the SDGs were on life support. A UN report issued in June 2024—five months before President Trump’s decisive election victory—found only 17% of the SDGs were on track.

About half showed minimal or modest progress, while one-third were actually going backwards. As we enter a new era set to be dominated by a handful of major powers and zero-sum game competition, is it time to declare the SDGs dead?

Is there a doctor in the building?

The SDGs may be ailing—their pulse faint and erratic—but in our opinion it’s not too late to save them. The goals still enjoy almost universal support among UN members. What’s more, most governments still believe in multilateralism.

They recognize that humanity’s progress throughout history has happened when people work together to create mutually beneficial win-win scenarios, not when a ‘winner-takes-all’ mentality prevails. And institutions like the United Nations haven’t gone away; their capacities and convening power remain.

Furthermore, the world is better placed today to take on many of the challenges targeted by the SDGs than it was ten years ago. For a start, new digital technologies and AI could improve access to real-time data and diagnostics, thus helping decision making. More broadly, breakthroughs in science and research—whether they relate to energy use or education, healthcare or agriculture—could prove transformative.

What’s more, the world is far wealthier than it was a decade ago. In spite of the COVID-19 pandemic, global GDP jumped from around US$85 trillion in 2015 to more than $115 trillion today; an incredible change in such a short space of time.

This means we have a greater financial capacity to fund change. In light of these transformations, international collaboration and innovation could undoubtedly help put more of the SDGs within reach.

For those who believe in collaboration over competition, the upcoming UN High-Level Political Forum (HLPF) offers an opportunity to demonstrate their mindset and commitment. The HLPF, which is taking place at UN Headquarters in New York from July 14-23, will assess progress across five of the seventeen SDGs.

This time around, it will look at health and wellbeing (SDG 3), gender equality and empowerment (SDG 5), sustainable economic growth and employment (8), oceans and marine resources (14), and the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development (17).

The theme in 2025 could not be more appropriate: advancing science and evidence-based solutions.

In recent years, there has been a backlash against experts and even a rejection of science in some quarters. The HLPF provides a timely opportunity for governments and other stakeholders to reaffirm their commitment to science and research-based decision making as the only logical, common-sense path to achieve the promise of the SDGs.

At the HLPF, 37 countries will be asked to present their national reports on the SDGs. From Bangladesh to Bulgaria, India to Indonesia, South Africa to Saint Lucia, more than three dozen countries, large and small, will have the chance to make their views clear to the world.

One of the countries that will be presenting is Germany, which will hold the Presidency of the General Assembly from September 2025 to September 2026. At such a critical time, it is reassuring that we will have leadership from a country that has been such a staunch supporter of multilateralism.

With five years to go to the SDGs’ 2030 deadline, we believe it’s time to double down on the promise of the SDGs and commit to a pathway focused on science, technology, innovation and collaboration.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is scheduled for release in June 2025.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

A mother and her children are seen wading through a cloud of smoke at the Dandora dumpsite, Kenya's largest open landfill. Credit: Jackson Okata/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 30 2025 (IPS)

When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

Excerpt:

As the annual global Climate Conference (COP29) continues its first week in Baku, Azerbaijan, we can already see what the impact of the next Trump presidency will be. Credit: Shutterstock

By Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss
Nov 12 2024 (IPS)

So, the worst has happened. American voters have apparently just elected the most chaotic and kleptocratic individual in their country’s political history as their president. (We say ‘apparently’, because these days nothing can be certain about the integrity of the US political or electoral system – as is the case with far too many other countries.)

That means the incumbent president, Joe Biden – who implemented the greatest investment in wind and solar energy, in climate-friendly technology, and in reducing CO2 emissions in any nation in history – is out.

That means the previous president, Donald Trump – who opposed every one of those climate-friendly investments and has promised the greatest re-investment in oil, gas and coal of any nation in history – is back in .

There are many losers from the US election, and the mood in Baku these two weeks will often seem bleak, but it will offer a clear opportunity for starting to work out a strategy by which climate change can be addressed without US leadership

As the annual global Climate Conference (COP29) continues its first week in Baku, Azerbaijan, we can already see what the impact of the next Trump presidency will be.

At home, Trump plans to dismantle President Biden’s environmental regulations in favor of the oil and gas industry. As he often screamed at his rallies, his policy is ‘drill baby, drill !’ That indicates the petroleum reserves under US national parks and in the fragile Arctic will be opened for extraction – even though the US already is the largest producer and exporter of crude oil of any country.

Internationally, the previous Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement – a process that for diplomatic reasons took four years to come into effect. If, as expected, a new Trump administration decides to again leave the Paris Agreement, it would be far more damaging. This time it will take only one year from the date the United States notifies the UNFCCC that it plans to leave. Next year’s pivotal COP30 would then be the last annual meeting the US attends as a party to the climate convention.

That withdrawal – combined with the probable end of all (?) climate assistance by the US to developing countries – will most likely (very possibly) herald the end of any chance for the world to achieve the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit for global temperature increase that was won in hard negotiations in in Paris in 2015.

It risks putting the world on a cataclysmic climate trajectory in this, the critical decade that was supposed to reduce the increase of the gases that impact on climate.

The infamous Project 2025 of the American far-right also calls for a future Republican administration to withdraw from the World Bank – which is the largest contributor to climate finance. That possibility is occurring right at the time that countries will be setting their new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), due on February 10th.

Developing country governments will therefore realize there will be less funding available to help implement their plans, so might reduce their ambition – at least for the next four years. Even if countries were able to obtain US funding, Project 2025 says this would be dependent on the recipients aligning with conservative religious values such as opposition to abortion.

The reductions may go further than the US government. Trump and US conservatives have attacked environmental, social and governance investing strategies (ESG) for years and attempted to intimidate companies.

Jefferies Financial Group has advised ESG Fund bosses to have ‘lawyers on speed dial’. So, an attempt to use the market to continue work on climate change may not be an easy option. Any CEO that goes against him will be aware that his or her company might feel the wrath of the White House – lost contracts being the obvious penalty.

There will be a wider erosion of multilateralism than on climate. The previous Trump administration withdrew the US from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). A new Trump Administration, led by anti-vaccine extremists, may move to limit engagement with the World Health Organization (WHO) as well.

What wealthy nations can – and must – do!

So how can other nations respond to this challenge?

The EU nations are faced with a tremendous challenge. Can they help fill the gap that will be left by the US while also defending their security and their democracies from active efforts to undermine them?

Can the EU and other developed nations implement a small but cumulatively significant climate tax dedicated to assisting adaptation and loss in the South?

Can the oil-producing North Sea nations tap far more of their own immense sovereign wealth funds to help others – particularly small island nations (Small Island States) – to avoid catastrophic climate damage?

Can the UK find increased motivation to rejoin the EU, at least on trade and environmental policy, given that Trump tariffs could cost the country $28 billion in lost exports1, dealing another serious impact to an already fragile British economy ? [1 Robert Olsen, Forbes magazine, Nov 9, 2024]

Can institutional investors, non-profit funders and corporations – even US corporations – increase their contributions to the Private Sector Facility of the Green Climate Fund, which provides funding directly to programs in local communities in developing countries?

Finally, can the Middle East petrochemical states fully share their vast wealth derived from oil to help the far-poorer nations facing climate risks caused by that oil? Can they support the universal phase out of oil, coal and gas – instead of simply building their own mega-solar plants to protect themselves as they continue to pump oil?

What developing nations can – and must – do!

Meanwhile, can the most rapidly-developing nations fill the political and financial gap and provide some of the lost social cohesion?

India has already pledged an important goal of 35 percent reduction in emissions intensity of its GDP by 2030 (which is not the same as absolute CO2 emissions reduction, but still a positive step), and net zero emissions by 2070. The official delegation of India to COP29 – together with government delegations of other rapidly-developing nations – could jointly announce their determination to increase their already announced Nationally Determined Contributions, and resist the loss of momentum from the US backing away from its carbon reduction goals .

Can India – the nation with world’s richest experience of both Western and Eastern cultural strengths, and the largest democracy – finally resolve its problems of racial and religious hatred, and present to other nations a new model of economic prosperity that lifts up and values the poorest as well as the richest?

Can China start to share technology and export growth to poorer countries in a model of genuine sharing that isn’t based on economic self-aggrandizement?

Can Brazil stabilize itself politically and nurture its immense ecological resources before they are cleared away and turned into cattle ranches?

Can South Africa walk past its internal political problems and various recent corruption scandals to become the sub-Saharan economic engine and political leader that everybody had hoped it would be?

Can Russia stop trying to repeat its own history of genocidal imperialism (see Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe) and fomenting insurrection, and instead act like a responsible nuclear power? After all it was Russia whose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol saw it come into effect.

A more isolated US will provide more opportunity for leadership by the most rapidly developing nations.

Perhaps it is now time for China, India and the most rapidly developing nations to significantly contribute financially to climate funds like the loss and damage mechanism that assists the very poorest and most vulnerable nations .

Perhaps countries like India and China, Brazil and Indonesia – whose cultures have thousands of years of agricultural experience in monsoon and rainforest ecosystems – could cooperate to provide expertise to farmers in other countries now facing tropical deluges.

The BRICS group now includes not only Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa and the UAE, but countries in a partnership relationship, like Indonesia and Turkey. It therefore includes six of the world’s predicted top 15 economies by 2030.

That is not an economically powerless group. It represents significant economic power. Will they use that power to help their brother and sister nations now even more at risk from climate chaos?

Or will they each merely attempt to mimic the worst aspects of Western vulture capitalism – taking as much possible, giving as little as necessary, while racing to exploit their own poor and working people, as well as the poor and working people in other countries ?

A coalition of the still willing

As always in policy and politics, perception can be as important as substance, and generating a public appearance of momentum can be a necessary ingredient for generating actual progress in negotiations. So, agreeing to address the problem is an essential step.

For the world to work, nations must be willing to work together. For the planet not to spiral into economic, social and climate collapse, individuals in each country must be willing to respect and care for other people – and other peoples .

There are many losers from the US election, and the mood in Baku these two weeks will often seem bleak, but it will offer a clear opportunity for starting to work out a strategy by which climate change can be addressed without US leadership.

The return of Trump will not only be the worst scenario for climate, of course. The impacts on civilians living in Ukraine and Gaza and Sudan, on women in the US and Afghanistan and Iran, on refugees and minority families throughout dozens of countries, and on democracy everywhere, will be potentially disastrous .

But the impact on climate might be the one that’s the most difficult – if not impossible – to reverse. ​Unless, that is, the remaining responsible governments – in a coalition of the still-willing – can creatively and cooperatively configure a strategy to minimize the damage, and constructively move forward for the common global good, together.

Felix Dodds is an Adjunct Professor in the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina. He has have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, an independent communications consultancy based in New York. His clients include NGOs, national governments, trade unions and UN agencies. He coordinated press conferences at the United Nations and at global environmental summits from 1992 to 2012 .

He is co-author of “Only One Earth – The Long Road, via Rio, to Sustainable Development” with Felix Dodds and Maurice Strong.

View of the empty UN General Assembly hall from its main aisle. Credit: UN Photo
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be in the running and assess their chances.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 23 2024 (IPS)

What makes an effective UN Secretary-General?

In our previous posts, we highlighted six possible candidates: Michelle Bachelet (Chile), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Alicia Bárcena (Mexico), Mia Mottley (Barbados), and Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria).

These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

With two years to go until the selection process takes place, some might feel it is too early to start this conversation. We disagree. By raising the question of António Guterres’ successor sooner rather than later, we hope to place on record the qualities we believe are needed. Here are the key skills and attributes we hope the next Secretary-General will bring.

A Bridge Builder

First, we believe the UN will need someone who can bridge a fragmented and polarized international landscape. Political divides have become all too evident, not just in the tragedies playing out in Ukraine, Gaza, Syria and elsewhere, but in the wider geopolitical sense.

A multipolar world is emerging from the previous global order. Add to this the growth of political populism, the triple planetary threat of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, and rapid technological change—including AI—and we are without doubt in unprecedented times.

A future Secretary-General will need to find ways to bring the fractured international community back to the table in a meaningful way. In this respect, one of the first tests for any prospective candidate will also be one of the hardest: persuading all five permanent members of the UN Security Council not to veto their candidacy while at the same time presenting a compelling vision that the General Assembly will find inspiring enough to support.

In fact, some are already wondering how the “Big Five” countries on the UN Security Council will find common ground on whom to nominate as their next UN leader when tensions remain so high between Russia and China on the one hand, and the US, UK and France on the other?

One question the Security Council will need to resolve in 2026 is whether it wants more of a “Secretary” than a “General”? Our sense is that they may prefer the former—that is, someone who is more pliable and less strident in their approach.

However, we believe a leader who can move seamlessly between the two roles—letting others lead when needed but stepping up when the time is right—would ultimately be better for the world at large.

In this respect, we may get more clarity on the perspectives of UN member states in the months to come. This year, 64 countries and the European Union are holding elections. This means around 50% of the world’s population is heading to the ballot boxes.

By the end of 2024, with many new leaders elected—or old leaders re-elected—we will have a better idea of how difficult it is going to be to build consensus and trust, both within the Security Council and in the General Assembly.

Breaking the Glass Ceiling

When António Guterres was appointed Secretary-General, many commentators voiced disappointment that the glass ceiling had still not been broken and a first female UN leader had not emerged. We agree. In 2026, the UN will be more than 80 years’ old. It is high time a woman was running the organization.

If our earlier posts show anything at all, it is that there is an abundance of talent waiting to unleashed. If the UN is ever to fully deliver on its vision as a force for global good, it needs to lead the way and shatter its own glass ceiling.

A Leader from the South

As we have already noted, some insiders expect the UN to revert to a rotation system where different regions each have a “turn” at holding the Secretary-Generalship. This system was interrupted last time around, when a Portuguese national was appointed when most expected an Eastern European.

This time, some are saying it is Latin America and the Caribbean’s turn. While we would welcome this, we do not think this should be an absolute rule. Instead, we would like to see the strongest candidate appointed from the widest possible pool.

What we do believe, though, is that a leader from the Global South would be appropriate this time around. With three-quarters of the world’s population living in the South and the last two UN leaders coming from the Global North (Portugal and South Korea), we believe the time is ripe for this change. With six billion people to choose from in the developing world, there is a wealth of talent to choose from.

Other Possible Candidates

While our posts have profiled six candidates we believe could do the job well, there are likely to be many other names arise in the conversation over the next two years. Below are shorter profiles on a few we have already come across.

Kristalina Georgieva (Bulgaria): An economist and current head of the International Monetary Fund, Georgieva has also served as Chief Executive at the World Bank and Vice-President of the European Commission. Those who believe the next Secretary-General should come from Eastern Europe would point to her reputation as a highly competent and effective administrator at the highest international level.

Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand): One of the world’s youngest heads of government when she was elected Prime Minister, Ardern served from 2017 to 2023. Her government was noteworthy for its handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, which contained the virus more successfully than many other countries, with the result that relatively few lives were lost.

Ardern was also praised for her response to a terrorist attack early on in her tenure, which led to rapid reform of her country’s gun laws. Known for her focus on governing with compassion and with a focus on human wellbeing, Ardern left office in 2023.

Since then, she has taken on several projects with an international dimension, including fellowships at the Harvard Kennedy School and Center for Public Leadership.

Juan Manuel Santos (Colombia): The former Colombian President and Nobel Peace Prize winner worked hard to end his country’s ongoing civil war. His “peace dividend” may appeal to those looking for a leader with a strong track record on peace and reconciliation. However, he would not be viewed as a change agent for those seeking to break the glass ceiling on women’s leadership (see above).

Achim Steiner (Brazil/Germany): The current head of UNDP can boast a long track record in the UN, the German government, non-profits and academia, although recent allegations of financial irregularities at UNDP may need to be resolved in order for his candidacy to gain traction.

Rafael Grossi (Argentina): The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and former Argentine diplomat has impressed many, although some wonder if his focus on nuclear issues and disarmament, which dates back more than two decades, may be too narrow in scope given the broad demands of the UN Secretary-General’s role?

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-3/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-4/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/lead-united-nationspart-5/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-6/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: United Nations
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be nominated and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.
 
“Violence against women in all its forms is a human rights violation. It's not something that any culture, religion or tradition propagates.”

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 22 2024 (IPS)

Michelle Bachelet is a formidable candidate to be the next UN Secretary-General. Some would even make her the frontrunner, should she choose to stand. Bachelet was the first female head of state in Chile, having served as president on two separate occasions: 2006 to 2010, and 2014 to 2018. Bachelet can also boast a long pedigree when it comes to human rights.

Bachelet lived in exile in Australia and Germany during the early part of Augusto Pinochet’s period as dictator, although not before being tortured by Pinochet’s secret police. She studied medicine and, on returning to Chile several years later, began to campaign for restoring democracy.

In 2000, she was appointed as Minister of Health by then-President Ricardo Lagos, introducing several major reforms and reducing hospital waiting lists. In 2002, she was appointed Minister of National Defense—a first for a woman in any country in the region.

Among various reforms, she strove to position the military so it would never be involved in subverting democracy, while also seeking reconciliation between the armed forces and the victims of Pinochet’s dictatorship.

In her first term as President (2006-2010), Bachelet introduced a range of reforms, including strengthening social security systems to offer more support for children and the elderly. She also appointed a cabinet with equal representation of men and women, and supported legislation to legalize gay marriage and promote women’s reproductive rights.

Michelle Bachelet

After her first term as President, Bachelet took a senior role at the UN. In 2010, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that Bachelet would become the first executive director of the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

Also known as UN Women, the new entity was the result of a merger of several previous UN groups. UN Women’s role is to advocate for the rights of women and girls and address specific issues such as violence against women and LGBT people. Bachelet held this position from 2010-2013.

Returning to Chilean politics, in late 2013 Bachelet was elected President of Chile for a second term. Again, Bachelet focused on strengthening human rights and supporting vulnerable communities, as well as promoting environmental protections.

Some policies—such as an attempt to introduce free education to a large number of poorer students—caused controversy and opposition—although some progress was still ultimately achieved.

In 2018, Bachelet returned to the UN. Perhaps appropriately considering her focus as President, she was appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, serving from 2018 to 2022. Bachelet spoke out strongly during this time on a number issues, from alleged human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, to the situation in the Nagomo-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the detainment of Uyghurs and other Muslims in China, and the situation in Yemen.

Assessing Bachelet’s Prospects

Could Michelle Bachelet become the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages, should she choose to enter her name into the contest.

Advantages

– Seniority: Bachelet has held the top job in Chile not once, but twice. Not only that, but she has also held two senior roles within the UN. Her experience has been at the highest level, and her networks are impressive. It is hard to imagine someone with a more appropriate mix of expertise.
– UN Credentials: As a former head of both UN Women and the UN High Commission for Human Rights, Bachelet’s insider knowledge is considerable. She would know how to navigate the organization effectively from her first day in the job.
– A Female Leader: As with other candidates featured in these articles, Michelle Bachelet would be a strong candidate to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.
– A Latina Leader: With the tradition that the UN Secretary-General is chosen by rotating through the various UN regions, Bachelet would likely satisfy those who believe it is Latin America and the Caribbean’s “turn” to nominate Guterres’ successor.
– Proven Impact: There are few potential candidates who could point to such broad impact both as a national leader and during two separate stints in high-level UN roles, especially in the fields of human rights and supporting vulnerable populations. Given the unprecedented uncertainty swirling around international diplomacy these days, a figure with a reputation as a “doer” may be welcomed.

Disadvantages

– A Threat to the Big Five? Like Mia Mottley of Barbados, Bachelet has made comments in the past, particularly during her time as the UN High Commissioner Human Rights, that may not have been welcomed by some UN member states. It is worth bearing in mind that whoever emerges as Guterres’ successor will need to convince all five permanent Security Council members—China, Russia, France, the US, and UK—that they are the best person for the job. It will be a difficult line for anyone to walk, especially when even a single veto could scuttle their hopes.

In spite of Bachelet’s obvious credentials, if just one of the “Big Five” members of the Security Council show signs of sensitivity to her comments on human rights in the past, Bachelet may have her work cut out to change their point of view. Still, her credentials are impressive and even opponents might have a hard time making a case against her.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-3/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-4/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/lead-united-nationspart-5/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The 15-member Security Council-- which includes five veto-wielding permanent members, namely the US, UK, France, China and Russia-- plays a decisive role in the election of a UN Secretary-General. Credit: United Nations
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be in the running and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.
 
“The suffering we see around us is a reminder of what is at stake when we lose sight of the long term, when we leave people behind and we lose the ability to put ourselves in others’ shoes. What we’re seeing is a preview of what the world could be in 2030, if the Sustainable Development Goals fail.”

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 19 2024 (IPS)

This was the stark warning of Rebeca Grynspan, Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), in 2023.

Grynspan was appointed as the new head of UNCTAD—and its first female leader—in 2021. Before this, she had been Secretary-General of the Ibero-American Summits from 2014-2021, and a deputy head at the UN Development Programme (UNDP) from 2010-2014.

She has also held other UN roles dating back a decade further. These include serving as a subregional director of the Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and as UNDP’s regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean.

But her expertise also crosses into government.

During the 1990s she held several high-profile roles in her native Costa Rica, including serving as Vice President from 1994-1998. She also held the housing, economics, and social affairs portfolios at various stages of her career, and was a Vice Minister of Finance in the late 1980s.

Rebeca Grynspan, Secretary-General of the Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

Grynspan has also been on various boards and high-level panels over the years, dealing either with financial matters, human development, or both. For instance, she chaired the board of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), served as a delegate to the UN Commission for the Reconstruction of Haiti, and more recently was on the G20 High Level Independent Panel (HLIP) on Financing the Global Commons for Pandemic Preparedness and Response.

She has also served on boards tackling issues such as nutrition and food policy, and women’s political leadership. She is also coordinator of the Task Team of the Global Crisis Response Group on Food, Energy and Finance set up by the UN Secretary-General to help support countries face the economic shocks related to the war in Ukraine.

Could Grynspan’s breadth of experience, and her deep background in finance and economics, be viewed as an asset at a time when financing in general, and particularly support for the Global South, are widely seen as inadequate?

For example, the shortfall in funding for the Sustainable Development Goals in the South is now estimated at $4 trillion. How can we turn this around? Grynspan’s professional experience, including negotiating the debt of her country with the IMF, and her extensive training as an economist (she holds economics degrees from universities in Costa Rica and the UK) could be viewed as timely and valuable in this regard.

Assessing Grynspan’s Prospects

Could economist Rebeca Grynspan become the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages should she choose to enter her name into the contest.

Advantages

– Seniority: Grynspan may not have been a president or prime minister, but as Vice President of Costa Rica she climbed close to the summit of her country’s political mountain. Although it is unclear whether the current Secretary-General’s status as a former prime minister will be a one-off event or the start of a trend, Grynspan’s seniority in her native Costa is unlikely to harm her candidature, should she choose to apply, and would likely help it.
– UN Experience: As the first female Secretary-General of UNCTAD, Grynspan has already broken one glass ceiling within the United Nations. She would also bring more than twenty years’ experience within the UN system, something that would surely be viewed as an asset during these uncertain times. Additionally, she is familiar with the internal workings of the UN in Geneva, New York and across Latin America, giving her insights into decision making at both headquarters and regionally. This breadth of experience within the UN could be useful to any future UN leader.
– Proven Impact: Grynspan is viewed as someone who can have an impact, a perception recognized by Forbes magazine, which named her among the 100 most powerful women in Central America four years running. She was also instrumental in the UN-brokered Black Sea Initiative agreed by Russia, Türkiye, and Ukraine that has allowed millions of tons of grain and other foodstuffs to leave Ukraine’s ports, playing an important role in global food security.
– Connections: Grynspan has had many years operating in the regional level and at the global level, too. Her networks may arguably not be as wide as some other candidates, but would still provide a good platform for her to succeed.
– A Woman Leader: As with our other candidates, Grynspan offers the chance to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.

Disadvantages

– Climate and the Environment: Although Grynspan has strong credentials on trade, finance and development, it is only recently that she began to have a higher profile on climate change and some of the other big environmental issues of our time. For instance, she recently co-hosted the first ever Trade Day event at COP28, and has become a strong advocate for reform of the financial and debt architecture to allow developing countries the fiscal space to invest in carbon mitigation and adaptation. Could her relatively recent involvement in this key issue count against her, or will it rather be seen as adding to her impressive credentials in other areas?
– Peace and Security: Peace, security and conflict resolution have not featured prominently in her background. However, as with climate change, they are often front-and-center of international news. If the UN Security Council members are looking for expertise in this area, might Grynspan’s relative lack of experience be considered a possible weakness? Or, would they consider her recent role in the Black Sea Initiative as recent evidence of her engagement in this area?
– Name Recognition: Although she is widely respected in her fields and across the UN, Grynspan may not have the same sort of name recognition among the public as some of the other candidates.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-3/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-4/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The UN General Assembly in session.
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be in the running and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 18 2024 (IPS)

Is the rough-and-tumble of leading the UN General Assembly a good preparation for the top UN job?

Maria Fernanda Espinosa served as President of the UN General Assembly from 2018-2019, garnering votes from 128 out of 193 member states. With her victory, she became only the fourth woman—and the first from Latin America—to run this important UN body.

Her time in charge of the General Assembly was eventful. During her year as its leader, Espinosa pushed hard for progress on women’s empowerment and gender equality, particularly in terms of boosting women’s political participation. On several occasions she gathered women heads of state and government, as well as other female leaders, for events aimed at advancing this agenda.

María Fernanda Espinosa Garcés, President of the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly. Credit: UN Photo

She also focused on the rights of refugees, presiding over the adoption of the Global Compact on Refugees, as well as a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Furthermore, she launched an International Year of Indigenous Languages and helped advance the international conversation on single-use plastics, supporting efforts to eliminate their use at UN headquarters in New York and Geneva.

Additionally, she used her tenure to urge greater progress on nuclear disarmament and on diseases like tuberculosis.

But her career began thousands of miles from New York. Her early focus was in the Amazon, working alongside indigenous communities in her native Ecuador. Later, she represented Ecuador as its Ambassador to the UN. She also served twice as her country’s Minister of Foreign Affairs and in several other ministerial positions, including as Minister of Defense and, earlier, as Minister of Natural and Cultural Heritage.

Prior to holding these senior government positions, Espinosa was an associate professor and researcher at the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences. She also served as an advisor on biodiversity, climate change, and indigenous peoples’ policies. Later, she became regional director for South America for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a position she held from 2005-2007.

Espinosa’s track record on climate change is also noteworthy, as she has served since 2009 as a key negotiator in several climate conferences, including COP21 in 2015, where the Paris Agreement was signed.

Her early academic life was as broad and eclectic as her later professional career, with degrees in social science, Amazonic studies, anthropology, political science, and linguistics. She even won a national prize in poetry.

Assessing Espinosa’s Prospects

Could Maria Fernanda Espinosa’s wide-ranging experiences qualify her to be the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages, should she put her name forward.

Advantages

– Right Region: Like several of our other potential candidates, Espinosa’s Ecuadorian background and an apparent preference for a leader from Latin America and the Caribbean could work in her favor.
– UN Experience: Espinosa has been both the President of the UN General Assembly, where she emerged with her reputation intact, and a UN Ambassador in New York. She has led the Group of 77 developing nations in UN negotiations and been a lead negotiator in key climate talks. These UN experiences should surely burnish her credentials.
– Connections: Espinosa developed strong networks during her time leading the Group of 77 and as President of the UN General Assembly. She has strong connections among leading women’s groups and indigenous peoples. Could this robust set of networks among senior politicians and various important stakeholders help her become Secretary-General?
– A Woman Leader: As noted previously, the UN has never had a female leader during its 80-year history. It is high time this changed. Espinosa would be another capable candidate. In addition, she has a clear track record promoting women’s leadership at the United Nations.

She is current Executive Director of the Group of Women Leaders for Change Inclusion, hosting a successful summit in Madrid early in 2024 that drew leaders from the UN system, as well as high-profile names such as Hilary Clinton.

Disadvantages

– Should Only Prime Ministers Apply? The current Secretary-General, António Guterres, was previously Portugal’s Prime Minister. While earlier UN leaders did not head-up governments, it is an open question as to whether Guterres’ appointment will set a new precedent or expectation for future UN leaders. If it does, Espinosa and other candidates who cannot boast of being a former president or prime minister may have their work cut out. That said, historically the UN Secretary-General’s role often attracted former foreign ministers to apply. If that earlier precedent is restored, Espinosa’s time as Ecuador’s foreign minister (twice) could be an advantage.
– An ‘Outside’ Insider? Like Alicia Bárcena and some other possible candidates, Espinosa can claim both outside experience as a government minister, and ‘inside’ UN expertise heading up the UN General Assembly and playing a leading role at major UN negotiations. However, it is worth noting that Espinosa has never actually worked within the UN as a staff member; most of her UN experience was gained while she was with the Ecuadorian government. This makes it substantively different. Espinosa will likely have less true inside working knowledge than some other possible candidates of how the UN operates internally, possibly meaning her learning curve would be steeper.
– Name Recognition: While those in UN climate circles and at New York headquarters will know her, Espinosa is not a household name. Could this tell against her?

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-3/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

UN Photo/ Manuel Elias
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? In this seven-part series, Felix Dodds and Chris Spence reveal who might be nominated and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 17 2024 (IPS)

A third possible candidate for UN Secretary-General is Alicia Bárcena. Mexico’s current Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Bárcena boasts a professional background that is both broad and deep.

Having originally trained as a biologist, she subsequently completed a master’s degree in public administration at Harvard University and has held several important roles within the Mexican government and at the United Nations. Her current role as Mexico’s Foreign Secretary, to which she was appointed in July 2023, marks just the latest relevant role in a long and distinguished career.

Internationally, her 14-year stint as head of the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) from 2008-2022 was the most recent example of her involvement in the UN, which dates back to when she served on the Secretariat for the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.

Alicia Bárcena

It also led her to the Earth Council in Costa Rica. A non-profit organization tasked with follow up to the agreements reach in Rio, Bárcena was its Founding Director in the 1990s.

One of the Earth Council’s major achievements was the development of the Earth Charter, an international declaration setting out values and principles for a sustainable, peaceful, and just world.

Bárcena’s subsequent work with the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and UN Development Programme (UNDP)—which focused on sustainable development and environmental engagement—reinforced her sense that complex challenges require connection and cooperation among many stakeholders.

Bárcena later served as UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s chief of staff at UN headquarters in New York. Under Annan’s successor, Ban Ki-moon, she was promoted to Under-Secretary-General for Management. It was during her years in New York that she helped create a UN Ethics Office and set up a whistleblower protection policy and rules on financial disclosures for senior officials.

She also began work on the UN Capital Plan to refurbish and fix UN headquarters. It was during these years that she gained access to the highest levels of decision-making in the organization. As a result of this experience, her knowledge of the internal workings of the UN in New York and elsewhere is almost unmatched.

As head of ECLAC from 2008-2022, she continued to pioneer greater transparency, public participation and justice in decision making, particularly on environmental issues. This culminated in 2021 with ratification of the region-wide Escazú Agreement by more than two dozen countries from Latin America and the Caribbean. The Escazú Agreement contains regional pledges on access to information, public participation and justice in environmental matters.

Bárcena’s belief in mediation and advocacy for peaceful resolution of global disputes—something we need now more than ever—is also firmly held. When taking over as Foreign Secretary in mid-2023, she described Mexico as:

“… a country of peace and, therefore, [we] must continue to help mediate peaceful settlements of disputes and to consolidate peace. This has been our position in the United Nations Security Council and in all multilateral forums.”

Some insiders believe Bárcena offers a rare blend of experience. Like Kofi Annan, she is an ‘insider’ candidate who understands the UN and what it can and cannot achieve. This would likely mean she would need less time to learn on the job than someone unused to the UN’s internal workings.

At the same time, she has also spent time in senior roles in Mexico, so understands governments’ perspective and needs. Such knowledge will likely be viewed positively by member states when assessing what sort of person they would like in the UN’s top job. Could this combination of internal and external experience make her an ideal candidate for the next UN Secretary-General?

Assessing Bárcena’s Prospects

Could Alicia Bárcena become the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages should she choose to put her name into the contest.

Advantages

– A Woman Leader: As with our other candidates, Bárcena offers the chance to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.
– Right Place, Right Time: As noted in our previous article on Barbadian Prime Minister Mia Mottley, Bárcena is also from the Latin America and Caribbean region, which many insiders believe should provide the next Secretary-General.
– Breadth of Experience: Bárcena’s decades-long experience with both the UN and Mexican government, as well as her engagement with other stakeholders, might appeal to UN member states looking for a more balanced background. Bárcena has worked with the UN as both an insider and an outsider, which may well be an asset.

Disadvantages

– Public Profile: Bárcena is well known both in Mexico and in UN circles. However, she is not a public name or former head of state like current Secretary-General António Guterres. Could this tell against her?

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-1/
https://www.ipsnews.net/2024/04/next-un-leaderpart-2/

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Crerdit: UN Photo/Cia Pak
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? This seven-part series reveal who might be nominated and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 16 2024 (IPS)

When the conversation turns to who might replace António Guterres as UN Secretary-General, the name of Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados, is on many insiders’ lips. In addition to being Prime Minister, she also serves as her country’s Minister of Finance, Economic Affairs and Investment, as well as its Minister of National Security and Public Service.

She is Barbados’ eighth Prime Minister and the first woman to hold this office. She has led her country’s Labour Party to two landslide election victories in 2018 and 2022. If UN member states are looking for a head of state to guide the UN and multilateralism in these troubled times, Mia Mottley will be a clear contender.

UN Photo/Cia Pak
“Our world knows not what it is gambling with, and if we don’t control this fire, it will burn us all down … Who will get up and stand up for the rights of our people?” — Mia Mottley, UN General Assembly, 2021. Prime Minister Mia Amor Mottley of Barbados addresses the general debate of the General Assembly’s 78th session September 2023

Mia Mottley first appeared on many people’s radars after her impassioned speech at the Glasgow COP26 Climate Conference in late 2021. Her fiery words in Scotland were followed shortly afterwards by her Bridgetown Initiative, which calls for a major reform of the world’s multilateral financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.

In particular, Mottley wants the IMF and others to ramp-up their work on climate change and other development challenges and provide more support for the most vulnerable countries. She has urged making financing easier to access and available at lower interest rates. For the most vulnerable, she is an advocate for grants, rather than loans that increase a country’s debt.

Working with the government of France and other partners from both North and South, Mottley has been advocating for clear and measurable changes in international funding, including more money for climate resilience and special drawing rights to enable developing countries to access emergency climate funds quickly and easily.

Her vocal calls for a “loss and damage” fund paid off at COP27 in Egypt when, against many insiders’ expectations, Mottley and her allies successfully advocated for the creation of a new funding institution.

This fund, which will support countries suffering loss and damage from climate change, had long been considered unachievable due to opposition in the North. The breakthrough at COP27 and subsequent progress at COP28 in Dubai have burnished Mottley’s reputation as a reformer.

Climate financing is not the only issue where the Barbadian leader has made a name for herself, however. On COVID 19, she resisted calls to restrict cruise ships when the pandemic hit, offering 28 “homeless” vessels entry in 2020 when other countries were turning them away.

More recently, she has been leading efforts on antimicrobial resistance—an issue widely viewed as a major emerging global threat to human health. She has also been a strong advocate for sustainable development and for reparations for slavery.

A Republican and UN Reformer

In 2021, Mottley also took the historic act of transforming Barbados into a republic, bidding farewell to Queen Elizabeth II as the country’s Head of State. More recently, she has set her sights on reforming the UN Security Council and in particular the veto powers granted to the UK, US, Russia, China, and France.

In her speech in 2022 to the UN General Assembly, Mottley said:

“We believe that a Security Council that retains the power of veto in the hands of a few will still lead us to war as we have seen this year, and therefore the reform cannot simply be in its composition but also [must include] the removal of that veto.”

Assessing Mottley’s Prospects

Could Mia Mottley become the next UN Secretary-General? Here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages should she choose to enter the contest.

Advantages

– A Woman Leader: Mia Mottley would be a strong candidate to break the glass ceiling and become the first female leader of the UN.
– Location, Location: With the tradition that the UN Secretary-General is chosen by rotating through the various UN regions, Mottley might be in the right place at the right time. Although the last selection broke the cycle (Guterres is from Portugal, whereas an Eastern European was supposed to be chosen), some people believe the convention of rotation should be restored and that it is now the turn of the Latin America and Caribbean region to nominate Guterres’ successor. Given Barbados’ location, Mottley could find herself coming from the right place at the right time.
– Proven Impact: Mottley’s success with the loss and damage fund, as well as her noteworthy move to turn Barbados into a republic, have given her a reputation as someone who can get things done. Given the uncertainty swirling around international diplomacy these days, a figure with a reputation as a dynamic achiever may be welcomed.
– Connections: As a national leader active on the international stage, Mottley is well connected and has developed good relations with leaders both in the North and South. Could her networks and connections with senior politicians help her?

Disadvantages

– A Threat to the Big Five? Mottley is pushing for UN Security Council reform, including ending the veto powers of the Big Five permanent members: the US, UK, China, Russia, and France. And yet it is these countries that must ultimately agree on and nominate a candidate for Secretary-General, which the General Assembly must then approve.

While it seems highly unlikely the UK would hold any grudges at Barbados’ move to become a republic—something other countries have done before—how comfortable would any of the so-called Big Five feel appointing a fiery advocate for curtailing their own UN status and privilege? Would they resist such change … or might they see in Mottley someone with whom they could talk, negotiate, and possibly find some sort of compromise?

Whoever emerges as Guterres’ successor will need to convince all five permanent Security Council members that they are the best person for the job. It will be a difficult line for anyone to walk, especially when even a single veto could scuttle their hopes.

In spite of Mottley’s obvious credentials, it is her advocacy for Security Council reform that may weigh most heavily against any aspirations she may have to take the top job. The powers of persuasion for which she is known will need to be on full display.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe
 
With current UN Secretary-General António Guterres set to step down in 2026, who is in the running to replace him? A seven-part series reveal who might be in the running and assess their chances.
 
The potential candidates include Amina J. Mohammed (Nigeria), Mia Motley (Barbados), Alicia Barcena (Mexico), Maria Fernanda Espinosa (Ecuador), Rebeca Grynspan (Costa Rica) and Michelle Bachelet (Chile). These are names that have come up in conversations with UN insiders and other experts. All six would offer skills and experiences we believe would be valuable in these fast-paced, uncertain times.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
APEX, North Carolina / DUBLIN, Ireland, Apr 15 2024 (IPS)

Could a UN insider take the top job? Amina J. Mohammed is the current Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations. She has been in the role since early 2017, making her something of a veteran within senior circles.

A British-born Nigerian, Mohammed’s UN experience goes back even further. For instance, she played a critical role in the development of the post-2015 Development Agenda as an Assistant Secretary-General within previous Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s office.

In that role, she acted as the link for the Secretary-General and the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons Annan set up under several global political leaders. This UN experience means Mohammed not only understands the internal workings of international relations, but has interacted with many world leaders for more than a decade.

UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed. Credit: United Nations

Mohammed’s Nigerian credentials are also noteworthy. Before becoming UN Deputy Secretary-General, she served as her country’s Environment Minister, where she steered the country’s efforts on the Sustainable Development Goals and action on climate change. Her prior experience cuts across government agencies, the UN, and academia, including a spell at Columbia University in New York.

Mohammed’s time as Guterres’ deputy at the UN has seen her carve out an important role for sustainable development. She is Chair of the UN Sustainable Development Group and has attempted to reposition sustainable development and the SDGs at the center of the organization’s work.

She has also overseen reforms that give the UN Resident Coordinators—who are the most senior UN development staff at the country level—greater independence and authority to coordinate UN activities in their country. In an interview with UN News, Mohammed said these changes would allow “a much more independent and impartial leader” at the country level.

“What I would say is that, in previous times, we’ve sort of had a conductor that, through no fault of their own, is conducting a cacophony – the left-hand does not know what the right hand is doing,” she said. “Today, we have an opportunity to make a symphony for the SDGs. That’s really the difference on the ground.”

Assessing Mohammed’s Prospects

Could Amina Mohammed be the next UN Secretary-General?

While a final decision is more than two years away, here is our assessment of her advantages and disadvantages, should she choose to throw her hat into the ring.

Advantages

– A Woman Leader: The UN has never had a woman leader. As the organization approaches its 80th birthday, many observers rightly view this as almost scandalous, especially given the number of strong female candidates over the years.
– UN Experience: Mohammed is a UN veteran. There is an argument that an insider with the right knowledge would be able to hit the ground running more easily than an outsider. What’s more, much of Mohammed’s recent experience has been at UN headquarters in New York, where much of the organization’s key strategic decisions are made. This knowledge of how the UN works at the highest levels would surely be an asset during these uncertain times.
– Proven Impact: Mohammed can point to a number of successes during her time as UN deputy, particularly her internal reforms and championing of the Sustainable Development Goals. Given the headwinds the organization has faced in recent years, a candidate who can point to some genuine successes could arguably make a compelling case for promotion.
– Connections: Mohammed has had many years operating in the rarefied air of global political leadership, shaking hands and making deals with top politicians from around the globe. Could her networks and connections with senior politicians help her?

Disadvantages

– Wrong Region? There is a tradition—or at least, an expectation—that the UN Secretary-General rotates through the different UN regions. In reality, this does not always happen. For instance, António Guterres is Portuguese, whereas it was supposed to be an Eastern European who was appointed last time. This time around, however, many believe it is Latin America and the Caribbean’s turn. If enough people agree, Mohammed’s chances would be significantly diminished.
– Outsiders Usually Win: Internal promotions to the top job at the UN are rare. In fact, a Deputy Secretary-General has never been promoted, ever. Of course, it could be argued that the deputy’s job is fairly new, since there has only been a Deputy Secretary-General since 1998. Furthermore, fans of internal promotions point out that Kofi Annan, a previous Secretary-General, had been a senior UN staff member before taking the top job. However, the lack of a recent precedent for internal promotions and the fact that no former UN deputy has ever taken the top job could well be an obstacle.
– Name Recognition: Amina Mohammed is very well known in international diplomatic circles. Outside them … not so much. Will the fact she is not widely known by the public-at-large tell against her?

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations conferences and negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring change.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

We face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat. Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Nov 22 2023 (IPS)

Climate change has been a source of concern among the international community since the 1970s. Yet, almost fifty years since the issue was first raised in international diplomatic circles by prominent scientists, the situation continues to deteriorate, with rises in temperatures and extreme weather causing ever-magnifying problems around the world.

What has the global community done to date to deal with what many consider an existential threat to humanity’s future? And what needs to happen next in the UN negotiations as diplomats and other key stakeholders head to Dubai for COP28? This briefing provides a short history of global cooperation to date, then looks towards Dubai and beyond for what needs to happen next.

COP28 is being held against a complicated global backdrop. With conflict and turmoil in Europe and the Middle East, tension among the great powers and economic uncertainty around the world, how realistic can our ambitions be for COP28 and what does it need to deliver for us to consider it a success?

We argue that, although much more has been done to date than many give the UN and global community credit for, we face a critical time where action needs to be scaled-up dramatically if we are to avoid the worst outcomes from the climate threat.

A Brief History of the International Community’s Response to Climate Change

The United Nations first began to set out the case for action on climate change in the late 1970s, with the First World Climate Conference in 1979. Sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), it brought together scientists from various disciplines to explore the issue.

This led in 1988 to the establishment by the WMO and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which took scientific consideration of climate change to a new level. The research-based warnings presented by the IPCC strengthened the case for action (and continue to do so today).

Initially, a Second World Climate Conference was held in 1990 and this set the agenda for negotiations on a global treaty. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was agreed by the UN General Assembly in time for the June 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The agreement entered into force in March 1994 when 50 countries had ratified the convention through their legislatures. It now has 198 Parties.

The UNFCCC is sometimes criticized for being weak or ineffective. However, as a “framework” convention, it should really be considered a foundation or starting-point for further agreements that build upon it. In this respect, it models earlier agreements, including the ones that have so successfully tackled the ozone crisis.

The Vienna Convention, which was the first treaty on ozone, was itself quite limited. However, subsequent agreements, including the Montreal Protocol, built a strong and ultimately successful structure upon this early foundation.

Furthermore, the UNFCCC does include some strong and important concepts and commitments, including the need to limit climate change caused by humans to a level that is not dangerous. It also recognizes that some countries are better placed than others to do this work, and that many, such as those in the Global South, will need support and assistance.

The UNFCCC led rapidly to the Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed in December 1997. It, too, recognized the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” between different groups of countries, with developed countries to take the lead and carry the most responsibility for emissions in the atmosphere.

The Kyoto Protocol was innovative in several ways.

First, it included specific targets for many countries from the Global North. While not all governments took these as seriously as they might, in many countries it started an ongoing and detailed policy response from governments, including greater investment in renewable energy and other policy shifts to begin to decouple economic growth from the growth in fossil fuel emissions.

These efforts have enjoyed some success, and per capita emissions have dropped in many industrialized countries even as rising populations and economic growth elsewhere mean global emissions have continued to increase overall.

What’s more, the Kyoto Protocol provided a catalyst for private sector engagement. Government policies that encouraged corporate investment in new technologies, emissions trading, and other innovations began to make the climate response look more like a “whole-of-society” effort than one involving sequestered government departments.

However, as the economies of the Global South grew and prospered in the 2000s, it was clear that Kyoto, with its focus squarely on actions in the Global North, would not be enough.

Hopes were high that the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009 would replace the Kyoto Protocol with a more ambitious approach that would come into effect from 2012.

Ultimately, it failed in its immediate goal of securing a new, legally binding agreement. However, as we note in our book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy (Routledge, 2022), although the meeting did not secure a new deal, President Obama did manage to float some new concepts in a weakened outcome known as the Copenhagen Accord. The ideas it contained included a $100 billion climate fund to help the Global South and, even more significantly, a need for all countries to be a part of the solution to climate change.

In 2015, the seeds sown at the disappointing meeting in Copenhagen finally bore fruit. The Paris Agreement took on the ambitious aim of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. It requires countries to take on targets and to report back to the UN on progress.

While some criticized these targets for being voluntary rather than mandatory (as was the case with Kyoto), many praised the fact that the commitments were to be taken on by all countries. What’s more, the Paris Agreement provided flexibility so countries could take on what was best fitted to their particular circumstances and level of economic development. This made it possible for all countries to agree on the way forward, since it continued to respect nations’ sovereignty rather than trying to impose specific emissions targets on them.

One sign that Paris has had a positive impact has been forecasts for future global temperature rise by the end of the century. Before 2015, various predictions based on emissions trends suggested rises of upwards of 4, 5, and 6 Celsius, or even higher.

This would be utterly catastrophic for humanity. Today, forecasts trend somewhere between 1.8C-3C, depending on the assumptions in the model. To be clear, these are still very bleak numbers. They signify likely outcomes that are highly dangerous and may even be calamitous. But it does show an encouraging trend.

One of the family photos taken after the laborious end of the 26th climate summit in Glasgow, which closed a day later than scheduled with a Climate Pact described as falling short by even the most optimistic, lacking important decisions to combat the crisis and without directly confronting fossil fuels, the cause of the emergency. CREDIT: UNFCCC

The next significant UN climate conference was COP26 in Glasgow. Held in 2021 as the world was still reeling from the COVID pandemic, the outcome from COP26 included the Glasgow Climate Pact, which sought to promote the reduced use of coal and other sources of emissions.

Glasgow also witnessed the first review of countries’ voluntary commitments under Paris (known in UN-speak as “Nationally Determined Contributions”). Glasgow also promoted the idea of ‘coalitions of the willing’ to advance ideas that might not have enough support to find consensus among all 198 countries that belonged to the UNFCCC, but that were nevertheless considered by some to be worth pursuing.

In spite of some skepticism at the time, some of these coalitions do promise positive results. For instance, the Methane Pledge now has 111 countries committing to a 30% reduction in methane on 2020 levels by 2030. If countries honor their promises, this could bring down climate projections by 0.2C by 2050.

Another coalition of the willing was the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which brought commitments from over 650 global financial institutions from banking, asset owners and managers, insurers and financial service providers committing to support the transition to net zero. Again, promises only matter if they are kept. However, if they are honored, then the impact of GFANZ will be significant.

In 2022, the UN Climate Conference, COP27, was held in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. There, the major breakthrough was the agreement on the need for a fund to help developing countries suffering loss and damage caused by climate change. Such a fund has long been a rallying cry for negotiators from the Global South, as well as their allies.

For a meeting billed as the “implementation COP” where climate action was taken to another level, the news on mitigation and finance was therefore disappointing. Credit: Shutterstock

What Next? Looking towards COP28 in Dubai

COP28 is being held against a complicated global backdrop. With conflict and turmoil in Europe and the Middle East, tension among the great powers and economic uncertainty around the world, how realistic can our ambitions be for COP28 and what does it need to deliver for us to consider it a success?

Progress on Loss and Damage

The run-up to COP28 in Dubai has seen significant work by a transitional committee deliberating on the infrastructure of a future Loss and Damage Fund. It was meant to have three meetings between the COPs and ultimately needed more before a compromise was found on where such a fund might be situated. In the end, the agreement was for the World Bank to act as an “interim” host for four years.

The decision to set up a similar governance structure to the Green Climate Fund has perhaps given it a heavy bureaucracy, which might be a problem in the future. However, the forward momentum and growing certainty on how it will be organized has encouraged a number of countries to put funds into the nascent Loss and Damage Fund. This includes the European Union, which is pledging “substantial” contributions. Meanwhile, the host country, UAE, is looking at making a contribution, The US has also said it would put “several millions into the fund”. While modest in size, it is at least a start.

A key issue in Dubai will be who will get the money. The agreement at COP27 was to assist “developing nations, especially those that are particularly vulnerable”.

The EU is suggesting this means the least developed countries and small island developing states. Developing countries have so far resisted reducing it to those groups. Some point to situations such as the terrible floods in Pakistan before COP27 as an example of how funds might be allocated. Pakistan is neither a least developed country nor an island state. Does that mean it would not have been eligible had such a fund existed at the time, in spite of its clear and obvious need?

In spite of these kind of uncertainties, COP28 is expected to advance work on the Loss and Damage Fund. Failure to do so would be judged harshly, given recent momentum.

Beyond Loss and Damage – Boosting Funding

The commitment proposed back in Copenhagen in 2009 for US$100 billion a year for climate finance by 2020 was not achieved until 2022. In part, the blame for this can be placed on COVID 19, which caused disruption in aid and climate budgets, among many other problems.

While the $100 billion goal has now been attained, it is important to remember that this was intended as a floor and not a ceiling. Furthermore, much of the money is being distributed as loans rather than grants. As a consequence, it has actually had a negative impact on the indebtedness of some least developed countries.

The reality is that we need trillions, not billions, to address climate change and that government aid will not be enough. As a reference point, Official Development Assistance (ODA) reached a new high of US$204 billion in 2022. While welcome, this is wholly inadequate for the climate crisis, for which funding should be additional to ODA in any case.

COP28 marks a staging post on the path to developing a new collective quantified goal on climate finance, which is slated to be agreed in 2024. In Dubai there will be a High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on 3 December. This discussion should send a strong signal that any new goal in 2024 will be ambitious, innovative, and at a much higher level than in the past. Anything less will invite criticisms that COP28 was a missed opportunity.

Looking Back to Leap Forward?

A major component of the talks at COP28 will be what insiders call the “global stocktake”. Held every five years, it presents delegates with an opportunity to assess their collective progress in delivering on the Paris Agreement. How has the world performed in terms of climate mitigation, adaptation, and implementation?

Participants in this year’s stocktake have before them the worrying fact that the world is already nudging close to the 1.5C warming limit governments pledged to stay within. Optimists are hoping COP28 catalyzes the beginning of more ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions in the next two years, and a strong collective undertaking by governments to redouble their efforts.

The signs so far are not positive. Since COP27, only 20 countries have increased their pledges, including Egypt, Mexico, Norway, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates.

While this should be welcomed, none of the major emitters has stepped forward. Recently, the head of the UN’s climate office, Simon Stiell, labeled efforts as “baby steps” rather than the “bold strides” that are needed. If COP28 does not yield a satisfactory outcome on this topic, many are likely to see it as a missed opportunity, or even as a failure. At the very least, major emitters should step up at COP28 and indicate that they will be announcing much more ambitious goals sooner than later.

A Host of Problems?

In recent months, there has been considerable criticism of the incoming UAE Presidency. Many media commentators have asked why an OPEC member should be hosting a climate COP? Does this not send a bad signal, they ask?

Many of these talking heads may not be aware that UN Climate Summits are rotated around the five UN regions, and that this was Asia’s turn to host. Furthermore, there was little appetite from other governments in the region to host it.

Critics have also pointed out that the President of COP28 will be Sultan Al Jaber, who has a history in the fossil-fuel industry. The counter-argument is that he has also been prominent in promoting the UAE’s work on renewable energy. He was the founding CEO and is the current Chair of Masdar, a UAE-owned renewable energy company. As we write this article, the United Arab Emirates has launched the Al Dhafra solar farm. It is now the world’s largest single-site solar farm, powering 200,000 homes.

Rather than engaging in these debates, we would argue that the host government should be judged on whether COP28 is a success. The UAE Presidency has identified its own priorities where they will push for major progress: mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, innovating the UN process by engaging more with the private sector, and pushing for greater inclusion, accountability and transparency.

These are worthy goals and it should therefore be possible to judge them based on these topics once the meeting ends. If they deliver, it will show that a fossil fuel producer is capable of promoting progress on climate change. If it does not, then the UAE will certainly come in for criticism.

It is also worth noting that, although the UAE is a prominent fossil fuel producer, many previous hosts have also been in the same camp, even if some are less well known for this. For instance, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia have all hosted COPs in the past (Poland has actually hosted three), and yet all four of these countries line up among the world’s top ten coal producing countries.

Meanwhile, Qatar, another former host, is a major oil and gas producer. Should they not have hosted the COPs? Again, we feel hosts should be judged by the results they achieve.

Ramping Up the Carbon Market

The Paris Agreement included use of carbon markets to reach our emissions targets. A rulebook for this was largely completed at Glasgow in 2021. This should open the door to many billions of dollars of investments (in 2021 it was $2 billion). The rules set at Glasgow should help ensure that offsets are of high “quality” (meaning they genuinely help reduce and offset emissions).

COP28 will provide an opportunity to assess early progress as we move into an implementation phase. Are the markets ramping up? Who is using them, and how can we encourage them to grow? COP28 needs to address these issues.

Global Goal on Adaptation

The world is so far down the climate change path that adapting to its impact is already happening and will be unavoidable in future. A review under what is known as the Glasgow–Sharm el-Sheikh work programme (GlaSS) will be presented at COP28, and clear targets, indicators, and financing options are expected by COP29.

There was also a commitment in Glasgow to double adaptation funding by 2025. If this happened, it would raise the amount to US$40 billion annually. Again, COP28 provides an opportunity to give some early signals this goal will be achieved.

Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero

Outside the government negotiations, observers at COP28 will also be looking for progress by other stakeholders. For instance, the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero referred to earlier represents two-fifths of the world’s financial assets, $130 trillion, under the management of banks, insurers and pension funds that have signed up to 2050 net-zero goals, including limiting global warming to 1.5C. The potential of such a group is enormous.

At COP28, this group should report back on progress, and other stakeholders should be ready to hold it to account to ensure these goals are real and are being actively pursued, rather than just being empty promises.

Judging Dubai

COP28 has a number of key outcomes it needs to deliver, as well as being an important stepping stone to further COPs that will also have to deliver specific outcomes that are ambitious and commensurate with the scale of the challenge we face.

If delegates in Dubai are to declare success, they will need to finalize the Loss and Damage Fund, advance the Goal Global on Adaptation, and pack a real punch with the Global Stocktake, with concrete outcomes to help us limit global temperature rise. Do this, and COP28 stands a good chance of being hailed a success. Fail to deliver and observers will view it rightly as a missed opportunity not just for diplomacy, but in guiding us towards a more sustainable future.

Felix Dodds and Chris Spence are co-editors of the recent book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge Press, 2022). It includes chapters on the climate negotiations held in Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015). Felix is also Director, Multilateral Affairs. Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service (RMWSSS) at Arizona State University

References

UNFCCC (2023) Nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Synthesis report by the secretariathttps://unfccc.int/documents/632334

UNFCCC (2023) UN Body agrees vital carbon crediting guidance ahead of COP28, UNFCCC. Available online here: https://unfccc.int/news/un-body-agrees-vital-carbon-crediting-guidance-ahead-of-cop28

UAE’s role as COP28 host will be judged on results. Will COP deliver an operational and meaningful loss and damage fund? Will it produce a global stocktake that invigorates international action? How will discussions on a new global finance goal shape up? And will Sultan Al Jaber’s overtures towards the private sector turn the steady trickle of pledges into a giant wave of action? Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, May 16 2023 (IPS)

Perhaps one of the least well known among Dubai’s many attractions is surfing. Locals and visitors enjoy the sport at Sunset Beach and elsewhere, especially in winter. There is even an artificial wave pool where surfers can hone their skills. To some, the pool is just another example of the host country’s entrepreneurial outlook.

With COP28 on the horizon, the host government of the United Arab Emirates is once again promoting the virtues of business. In a recent interview with the Guardian media outlet, COP28 president-designate Sultan Al Jaber said the world needs a “business mindset” to tackle the climate crisis. What’s more, he laid out plans to use the COP to promote private sector goals as well as those for governments.

Will this focus on business signal a genuine new green wave, or will it wipe out? This article assesses the state of play and the host’s approach as we head into the official preparatory meetings taking place in Bonn, Germany, in June.

What was achieved at COP27?

To understand the situation, we need first to look at what happened at COP27. This is important not just in terms of the current landscape, but because the COP27 hosts, Egypt, technically continue to hold the presidency until COP28 officially starts on November 30th.

The main source of disappointment at COP27 was the absence of ambition on mitigation. There was a noteworthy lack of new and ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from governments. What this means is that the critical needle has not shifted when it comes to keeping global warming to less than 1.5 Celsius, or even under 2C

While all incoming presidencies are incredibly active in the months leading up to the event they will host, the outgoing presidency has a role to play, too, and the quality of the relationship between the two governments is important.

For many UN insiders, COP27 exceeded expectations. Admittedly, expectations were not high, particularly since COP27 was viewed by many as an “in-between” COP rather than one with critical milestones of the sort that occur every few years. While all COPs matter, most insiders will tell you not all are equal in importance.

The COP in Sharm El-Sheikh had a menu of issues it was dealing with, but it was not one where, say, a new global agreement was expected (such as COP21 in Paris), or a global stock take was due (as will happen at COP28 later this year). There had been calls for governments to strengthen their Nationally Determined Contributions (pledges and commitments) at COP27, but few did.

The major achievement at COP27—and the reason the meeting exceeded expectations—was an agreement to establish a loss and damage fund to support vulnerable countries. Few anticipated such a positive outcome even a few weeks prior to the meeting.

Although the agreement on loss and damage did not include acceptance of historical responsibility, it was viewed as a big win for the Egyptian Presidency, small islands and other vulnerable states, as well as the Group of 77 developing countries, which in 2022 was under the presidency of Pakistan.

Under the terms of the agreement at COP27, the loss and damage fund will need to be operationalized at COP28 and a transitional committee is already working on this. In the world of multilateral diplomacy, this is an ambitious timeframe.

There was another positive development on a modest scale at COP27 on the Global Goal on Adaptation. Delegates agreed to “initiate the development of a framework” to be available for adoption in 2024. Meanwhile, on agriculture a new four-year process was agreed to carry on the work started under the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture. There is a sense now that agriculture and food security are gaining the attention they deserve in climate negotiations.

Outside the formal negotiations, many projects and alliances were advanced, including plans to accelerate the decarbonization of five major sectors: power, road transport, steel, hydrogen, and agriculture. Noteworthy initiatives included the launch of the Global Renewables Alliance, which brings together leaders from the wind, solar, hydropower, green hydrogen, long duration energy storage, and geothermal sectors.

Research released just before COP27 showed that the Global North is still not delivering on its commitment to provide $100 billion a year to the Global South. One silver lining to this dark cloud is that this goal may finally be reached in time for COP28. Still, that is three years too late. Credit: Shutterstock

What was not achieved at COP27?

The main source of disappointment at COP27 was the absence of ambition on mitigation. There was a noteworthy lack of new and ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from governments.

What this means is that the critical needle has not shifted when it comes to keeping global warming to less than 1.5 Celsius, or even under 2C. According to the Climate Action Tracker, our long-term scenarios are still well above 2C under most scenarios, and as high as 3.4C under their most pessimistic estimate. This means things have not really improved since COP26.

What’s more, research released just before COP27 showed that the Global North is still not delivering on its commitment to provide $100 billion a year to the Global South. One silver lining to this dark cloud is that this goal may finally be reached in time for COP28. Still, that is three years too late.

Meanwhile, COP27 did less to clarify new rules for the global carbon market than many were hoping to see. While COP26 in Glasgow had provided more details about Paris Agreement Article 6 (which sets out a framework for international cooperation and carbon markets), more granular guidance is still needed.

Some fear that without more details on accountability and measurement, for instance in terms of carbon offsets, we could end up with a “wild west” when it comes to the markets.

There was also little progress in negotiations aimed at encouraging the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase out of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. On the private sector side, while many companies have made net-zero targets, research suggests many do not have robust plans to deliver this, and there is uncertainty over how the private sector will use carbon offsets. Without greater clarity, this hyped-up “wave” of pledges from businesses around COP26 and before may end up a damp squib.

Looking to the Bonn climate conference

The political backdrop to the UN Bonn climate conference in June is complex. On the downside, governments are still emerging from the COVID pandemic and many are still focused on, and feeling the impact of, the war in Ukraine.

On the positive side, the cost of solar and wind continues to fall and European countries are moving more quickly because they want to be independent of Russian fossil fuels. Although others are taking advantage of Europe’s reduced demand to increase purchases of Russia’s fossil fuels at reduced prices, the growing focus on renewable energy in many countries should be seen as a positive overall in terms of climate mitigation.

With some major milestones coming up at COP28 later this year, the Bonn conference in June will give us some signals of how close we will be to delivering success in December.

Global Stocktake: UN climate negotiators are expected to take stock of progress on the Paris Agreement every five years. COP28 marks the culmination of the first “stocktake” and will be expected to shape and catalyze future action.

The stocktake has three phases. In the first phase, which started at COP26, information is collected and prepared from various sources to help assess progress. Phase 2, which started last year, includes in-person “technical dialogues” focused on mitigation, adaptation, and implementation. These will conclude in Bonn this June.

Finally, the stocktake will end at COP28 with a presentation of findings and discussions on how to respond. The Bonn meeting will therefore present an opportunity to take the pulse of these discussions. How robust have the technical dialogues been? Is there a surge of support from governments to make COP28 a major milestone for climate action? Bonn should provide clues about this.

Loss and Damage Fund: The transitional committee has been established and had its first meeting in Luxor, Egypt, in April. It will meet again in Bonn. Its role is to make recommendations on how to operationalize both the new funding arrangements and the fund at COP28. How are these discussions proceeding? Bonn should give some indications on progress, as well as potential areas of discord and disagreement.

Global Goal on Adaptation: With significant change already “baked in” to our climate system, effective adaptation will be critical. The Global Goal on Adaptation was agreed under the Paris Agreement and recognizes the need to build adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and limit vulnerability.

Adaptation will be addressed in Bonn under both the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). It also links to the work of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, a related UN initiative which is having its “mid-term review” at UN Headquarters in New York from 18-19 May.

New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance: The goal of providing $100 billion in support annually for the Global South by 2020 was originally set in 2009. Now it is up for review. Since that earlier goal was viewed as a “floor” rather than a ceiling, many are expecting more ambitious targets in future.

A new goal is supposed to be set before 2025, meaning COP29 in 2024 should mark the moment when a new number (or set of numbers) is agreed. Again, Bonn will mark a moment to assess how those conversations are going, especially given the wide differences in the type of dollar figures being bandied about by the Global North and Global South (many of whom are calling for trillions). Those following this topic can look to the 6th Technical Expert Dialogue, which is taking place in Bonn, to get a sense of progress.

Carbon Markets: As mentioned above, in spite of progress many are still hoping for more granular details on the carbon markets. This will be vital to curtail greenwashing with offsets.

Coalitions of the Willing: Sultan Al Jaber, the COP28 president-designate, recently highlighted the private sector’s role in combating climate change. In fact, all stakeholders will need to be fully engaged if we are to have any chance of staying withing 1.5C of warming. Voluntary coalitions of governments, the private sector and many others will be vital, especially when it comes to advancing issues where all 190+ governments that are party to the UN climate treaty and Paris Agreement are not yet ready or willing to agree.

Such voluntary initiatives offer considerable scope for those who want to move ahead. In turn, this has the potential to set precedents and entrench ideas that might be taken up by all governments in future formal UN negotiations. An example of this is the methane pledge, which involved some 50 countries reporting on progress at COP27. More should be looked for at COP28. Likewise, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, which has reportedly had some teething problems since its launch in 2021, will hopefully use COP28 as a moment to showcase progress and put its early difficulties behind it.

Will COP28 Launch a New Green Wave?

Eyebrows were raised when the United Arab Emirates was first named as host of COP28. Why, people asked, would a climate COP be held in an OPEC state? Furthermore, many wondered publicly whether Sultan Al Jaber, who is likely to preside over the meeting, should do so given his role as chief executive of UAE’s national oil company? Does this represent a conflict of interest?

These are fair questions that will only be fully answered by the COP and what it achieves. However, it is worth noting that the prospects of a fossil fuel-producing country hosting COP28 were always quite high.

As UN insiders know, the climate COPs are typically hosted on a rotating basis in each of the UN’s five “regional groups.” This time around, it was Asia-Pacific’s turn.

Many countries in this region, including more than a dozen small island nations, probably do not have the internal capacity to host an event of this magnitude. Of those that do, many—from Saudi Arabia to India, Indonesia to China, Iran to Australia—are fossil-fuel producers.

Furthermore, while Sultan Al Jaber has a history in the fossil-fuel industry, he has also been prominent in the UAE’s work on renewable energy and is the founding CEO and current Chair of Masdar, a UAE-owned renewable energy company. Depicting him simply as a fossil fuel “dinosaur” does not do justice to a more nuanced and complicated situation.

Ultimately, UAE’s role as COP28 host will be judged on results. Will COP deliver an operational and meaningful loss and damage fund? Will it produce a global stocktake that invigorates international action? How will discussions on a new global finance goal shape up? And will Sultan Al Jaber’s overtures towards the private sector turn the steady trickle of pledges into a giant wave of action?

Finally, will other stakeholders, like non-governmental organizations, be embraced and welcomed? We should also note the significance of appointing Razan Al Mubarak as UN Climate Change High-Level Champion for the COP28 Presidency, given she is also IUCN President and a former head of Abu Dhabi’s Environment Agency.

One early indicator in Bonn will be an expected update on COP28 logistics. This is likely to include more details on the “Blue Zone” (where negotiations are held and many stakeholders usually have pavilions and stalls). Will the Blue Zone offer easy access to all stakeholders? And how will the “Green Zone,” which at past COPs has been open to the public, operate?

Only time will tell if COP28 marks the start of a new green wave or ends in an unfortunate wipe out.

Professor Felix Dodds is Director, Multilateral Affairs. Rob and Melani Walton Sustainable Solutions Service (RMWSSS) at Arizona State University. Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute University of North Carolina and Associate Fellow, Tellus Institute, Boston City of Bonn International Ambassador.

Chris Spence is a consultant and advisor to a range of international organizations on climate change and sustainable development, as well as an award-winning writer.

Spence and Dodds recently co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022).

Excerpt:

Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, chair of COP27, reads the nine-page Sharm El Sheikh Implementation Plan, the document that concluded the climate summit on Sunday Nov. 20, to an exhausted audience after tough and lengthy negotiations that finally reached an agreement to create a fund for loss and damage, a demand of the global South. CREDIT: Kiara Worth/UN

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt, Nov 24 2022 (IPS)

It’s finally over. After the anticipation and build-up to COP27, the biggest climate meeting of the year is now in our rear-view mirror. The crowds of delegates that thronged the Sharm el-Sheikh international convention center for two long weeks have all headed home to recover. Many will be fatigued from long hours and sleepless nights as negotiators tried to seal a deal that would move the world forwards. Did all this hard work pay off? In our opinion, COP 27 was both better and worse than we’d hoped.

Failing to Follow the Science

First, the bad news. COP 27 failed to deliver what the science tells us was needed. With the window of opportunity closing fast on our goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C or less, COP 27 did far too little on the all-important issue of mitigation—that is, cutting emissions.

COP 27 failed to deliver what the science tells us was needed. With the window of opportunity closing fast on our goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5C or less, COP 27 did far too little on the all-important issue of mitigation—that is, cutting emissions

The case for urgent action keeps getting stronger. The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make for grim reading about what to expect if we let temperatures rise too much. Nowadays, though, we just need to read the newspapers to catch a glimpse of the future.

The head of the key negotiating Group of 77 – 134 developing countries – was Pakistan which has been dealing with the worst floods in its history, leaving 1717 people dead and dealing an estimated $US40 billion in damage. In 2022 in the USA, there were 15 climate-related disasters which each exceeded $1 billion in costs.

Meanwhile, in Africa, according to Carbon Brief’s analysis of disaster records, “extreme weather events have killed at least 4,000 people and affected a further 19 million since the start of 2022.”

Since this COP was billed by some as the “Africa COP”, one could expect a strong response to such news.

The pressure was therefore on at COP 27 to respond to such disasters. Attending COP27 were 112 world leaders and over 300 government ministers: not as many as at COP 26, but still a good number. Something like 27,000 people from governments, intergovernmental, stakeholders, and journalists also attended the COP. This was to the backdrop of the UN Secretary General warning us that we needed to “cooperate or perish,” to take urgent action to take us off “a highway to climate hell”.

Messing up on mitigation: And yet progress on mitigation was modest, at best. While some delegations pushed hard for stronger commitments on cutting emissions, the appetite in some quarters just didn’t seem to be there. After being pressured to do more in Paris and Glasgow, China, India, and some of the oil-producing countries appeared reluctant to take much more in Sharm el-Sheikh.

They feel developed countries, which are historically responsible for the bulk of emissions, should be doing more themselves, rather than coercing others. The result was a negotiated outcome with little more on the table than we had in Glasgow. For instance, delegates could not agree to ramp up their language on fossil fuels, much to many people’s disappointment.

Finance: Likewise, there was not too much to report on the issue of climate finance. The $US100 billion annual support for developing countries initially promoted by Hilary Clinton at the 2009 Copenhagen COP and enshrined in the Paris COP in 2015 will be reviewed in 2024 with a new figure being hopefully agreed then for 2025 implementation.

The Global South has been talking of this new sum numbering in the trillions to help adapt and mitigate against climate change. And yet there were few signs of movement towards anything of that magnitude.

Given that the North has still not met its pledge of US$100 billion by 2020, it’s clear a lot of movement is needed in the next couple of years. Yet news from outside the conference, such as the US House of Representatives now having a Republican majority, does not bode well.

For a meeting billed as the “implementation COP” where climate action was taken to another level, the news on mitigation and finance was therefore disappointing.

Just prior to the start of COP27 the lead negotiator for Egypt Mohamed Nasr underscored: “science reports were telling us that yes, planning is not up to expectations, but it was implementation on the ground that was really lagging behind.”

For a meeting billed as the “implementation COP” where climate action was taken to another level, the news on mitigation and finance was disappointing. Credit: Shutterstock

Exceeding Expectations—the Loss and Damage Fund

There were some bright spots, however.

Perhaps most surprising was the agreement to create a ‘Loss and Damage’ fund to help the most vulnerable countries. This has been a key issue for almost 30 years, particularly for small island developing countries.

In Glasgow this looked very unlikely to be resolved in the Sharm COP, but with a late change of heart by the Europeans and eventually by the USA and others in the OECD, this is perhaps the most significant and surprising outcome from COP 27. Even as recently as October, the signs were that OECD countries were not on board with calls for a new fund. However, at COP 27 the “trickle” of earlier action in this area turned into a flood.

Interestingly, it was Scotland at COP 26 that started things off, with a modest, voluntary contribution. More recently, Denmark, Austria, New Zealand and Belgium had also financial commitments to loss and damage, now amounting to $US244.5 million. Mia Mottley Barbados’ Prime Minister has called for a 10% windfall tax on oil companies to fund loss and damage caused by climate change, which could raise around $US31 billion if it had been introduced for 2022. Still, the signs a fund would be agreed at COP 27 had not been good.

This makes the final outcome all the more welcome. The idea, the door is now open for the most vulnerable countries to receive more support. A goal has now been set to fully operationalize the fund at COP 28 in a year’s time. For the most vulnerable nations, this cannot come quickly enough.

Global Goal on Adaptation: Another positive development, albeit on a more modest scale, was in the area of the ‘Global Goal on Adaptation’. Here, delegates agreed to “initiate the development of a framework” to be available for adoption next year.

A lot of work will need to be done at the intersessional meeting of the UN Climate Convention’s subsidiary bodies in Bonn in June next year to prepare for this, including how to measure progress towards this Goal. An approach similar to the development of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 might be appropriate, perhaps?

Article 6: Another of the Glasgow breakthroughs was that on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on carbon markets and international cooperation. COP 27 saw some solid work undertaken on how to operationalize this both in market and non-market approaches.

There are still a lot of sceptics on this will have a genuine impact and how to ensure not double counting or even that any offsets are real. An approach that is more ecosystem-based than just trees is gaining momentum. Such a change, if it happens, also offers a real chance to link the two major UN conventions on climate and biodiversity.

Agriculture: The work on the Koronivia Work Programme on Agriculture went down to the wire. The outcome was a four-year open-ended working group reporting at COP31 (2026). Some controversy on the term ‘food systems’ may see its first workshop address this issue.

It will also look at how we can better integrate the programme’s work into other constituted bodies such as the financial mechanisms of the convention. The Green Climate Fund has given only $US1.1 billion for adaptation on agriculture. It says one of the major reasons for this is the:

“Lack of integrated agricultural development planning and capacities that consider maladaptation risks and investment needs across the agricultural sector, climate information services and supply chains.”

While these outcomes on agriculture, adaptation and Article 6 may seem modest, they should be welcomed as steps in the right direction.

Coalitions of the Willing: One of the outcomes from the Glasgow COP was the launch of ‘Coalitions of the Willing’; groups of countries and stakeholders wanting to move quicker on an issue than they might under the official UN negotiations, which are consensus-driven and involve more than 190 countries. In Sharm el-Sheikh we saw a number of countries join the Methane Pledge, including Australia and Egypt. China joined the meeting on the Pledge and committed to its own national methane strategy.

In Glasgow, 137 countries had taken a landmark step forward by committing to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. With the imminent return to leadership in Brazil of President-elect Lula da Silva, there is renewed hope that real action on the Amazon forests is possible again. Lula committed Brazil to reaching zero deforestation and was hailed as a hero by many when he turned up at COP 27 during the second week.

Meanwhile, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ)—the global coalition of leading financial institutions—committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy. GFANZ, which includes over 550 of the world’s leading financial institutions, has committed to reduce their financed emissions in line with 1.5 degrees C.

With $US150 trillion of combined balance sheets, the accountability mechanism announced of a new Net-Zero Data Public Utility is yet to prove if it is effective in holding the finance sector to their commitments. However, if it can deliver on its potential, this could be a game changer.

There was plenty more activity at COP 27 where the results are harder to measure. Most people at these large UN climate summits are not negotiators and COP 27 was full of “side events” and government and stakeholder pavilions each with its own set of events and agendas.

Country pavilions provided a venue to talk about their challenges, issue pavilions on oceans, food, water, health, education, and resilience highlighted their issues and how they fit into the climate agenda. These enable critical issues to be discussed in a more open way than could be undertaken in negotiations.

Ideas were shared, connections made, and partnerships for further action shared. The upshot of all of this activity is hard to measure, but probably considerable. The thematic days organized by the Egyptian Presidency also gave space to these issues and helped bring together ideas that may ultimately find their way into future UN decisions. In this respect, too, the quality of the side events and pavilions at COP 27 exceeded our expectations.

On to Dubai and COP28

Was COP27 a success or failure? When it comes to keeping up with the science, the answer can hardly be positive. The call to “keep 1.5 alive” hangs in the balance and is still on “life support”. In that sense, COP 27 had very little impact on our current trajectory, which is a likely warming of 2.4-2.8 C by the end of the century.

On the other hand, the promise of a loss and damage fund, as well as modest successes on adaptation, Article 6, agriculture, and actions outside the official negotiations, mean COP 27 delivered some bright spots of success.

Looking ahead to next year, COP 28 will be important as it marks the first “global stocktake” to judge where things now stand. We hope this will focus world leaders to increase their pledges (or “nationally determined contributions”) significantly. It will be interesting to see how the United Arab Emirates, as COP 28 host, performs. As a major oil producer, it faces some serious challenges in transitioning to a net zero world.

At COP 27, there were rumours the UAE was ramping up its team and bringing in additional external expertise ahead of next year. This is certainly a good sign if COP 28 is to deliver the kind of groundbreaking outcomes the science now demands.

Felix Dodds and Chris Spence are co-editors of the new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge Press, 2022). It includes chapters on the climate negotiations held in Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015).

Excerpt:

With time running out, the meeting in Egypt will mark the moment when we start to see if the pledges made at COP26 in Glasgow, are being met. Credit: Shutterstock

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Nov 3 2022 (IPS)

So, Greta Thunberg won’t be coming to COP27. She’s condemned it as “greenwashing” and cast doubts on the host’s human rights record and lack of access for activists.

To be clear, we have nothing but admiration for what Greta Thunberg has accomplished as far as increasing the pressure on our political leaders to do more. We agree with her completely that a lot more is needed, and fast.

But when it comes to COP27, we hope she’ll change her mind. We have three reasons for this: the impact of diplomacy, the urgency of the situation, and COP27’s role convening people with power and influence.

Diplomacy works

One reason she has given for not attending is her concern that civil society representation may be less this time around, and she doesn’t want to take someone else’s place. This is thoughtful. However, Greta Thunberg has access to leaders’ others may not. Her presence could have a significant impact.
While Greta Thunberg is right that many international events are mostly “blah, blah, blah,” the United Nations negotiations on climate change have achieved a lot more than many people realize. Prior to the Paris Climate agreement in 2015, for instance, we were on a trajectory of 4-6 degrees Celsius rise in temperature by the end of the century. Now, estimates suggest we’re on track for somewhere around 2.4-2.8 C, if current pledges are met. While this would be a terrible scenario to have to face, it would be less apocalyptic than those higher numbers.

As we have pointed out in a previous article, international negotiations on climate change have had a profound impact already, kickstarting the shift away from two centuries of fossil fuel dependence and giving us at least a chance of achieving sustainability in the longer term. Just days ago, the International Energy Agency forecast that global emissions will peak in 2025 before beginning to fall. Furthermore, they see all types of fossil fuels “peaking or hitting a plateau” then, too.

Do we wish this had happened sooner? Absolutely. But it shows progress is being made. Besides, there is no alternative to an international process when it comes to dealing with a global problem of this magnitude. No country, company, or coalition, can solve this problem alone. We all need to work together.

Urgency means everyone joining the fight

We agree wholeheartedly with Ms. Thunberg’s exhortation for everyone to “mobilize” and be involved in solving this challenge. Many folks may choose to be activists or advocates for change, pressuring their home governments to be more ambitious, taking action locally, or changing their habits as consumers or investors. Thunberg is also quite right that time is running out; the science tells us the window of opportunity to restrict warming to 1.5C or less is closing rapidly.

Yet this is exactly why COP27 is so important. With time running out, the meeting in Egypt will mark the moment where we start to see if the pledges made at COP26 in Glasgow, are being met. Is the global community sticking to its promises or falling short? COP27 will give us an opportunity to review, press for greater urgency, and draw global attention to those who are keeping their promises and those who are not.

The decision at COP26 to not wait for 5 years until governments submit improved National Determined Contributions, but to ask all countries to update their NDCs by COP27, is also important.

A total of 39 Parties have communicated new or updated NDCs since COP26, including critical countries such as Australia and India. This is clearly not enough, but it is a start. The same request should be made at COP27, pressuring countries to review their NDCs in time for COP28.

Influencing the powerful

Finally, UN climate summits present a once-a-year opportunity to engage with powerful politicians and urge decisions on the climate threat. With time so short, no one who can influence the process should stay away.

Greta Thunberg has already had an outsized influence inspiring people to action and persuading politicians to take the issue more seriously. Her presence at COP27 would undoubtedly make a difference.

One reason she has given for not attending is her concern that civil society representation may be less this time around, and she doesn’t want to take someone else’s place. This is thoughtful. However, Greta Thunberg has access to leaders’ others may not. Her presence could have a significant impact.

For these reasons, we hope Ms. Thunberg will reconsider and use her influence to its fullest at COP27. As we write this, it appears that another powerful figure who had earlier ruled out attending may be changing their mind.

New British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, had initially also said he wouldn’t attend, citing the country’s financial and energy challenges and urgent budget planning as the reason for staying home.

However, he has now had a change of heart. The public response to his initial decision, as well as concerns from industry and civil society, made the Prime Minister reconsiders his position. This is welcome news and, we believe, the right decision.

If Rishi Sunak wishes to build on the UK’s solid performance at COP26 and burnish his country’s reputation for taking climate change seriously, we hope he attends with not just positive rhetoric, but new commitments and financing. It would be a positive signal if King Charles also attended.

After all, the UK is still the President of the COP until the start of COP27. Missing the next COP would not have sent the right message to the UK’s partners and the global community in general.

With no other realistic way to solve climate change than the multilateral system, we urge Greta Thunberg to follow Rishi Sunak’s lead and join the gathering. In fact, all of those in positions of power or influence should come to Sharm ready to work for the best agreement possible. As John F. Kennedy said. “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate”.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022), which examines the roles of individuals in inspiring environmental change.

Excerpt:

How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting? Credit: United Nations

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Oct 18 2022 (IPS)

Next month, the latest annual United Nations climate extravaganza, COP27, will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Last year it was in Glasgow. Next year it will be held in (drum roll please) … Dubai!

These big climate events have been around a long time. Since 1995, there has been a climate COP (short for “Conference of the Parties”) every year except 2020, when it was postponed due to the Covid pandemic. Over the years, the COP roadshow has traveled far and wide. From Berlin to Buenos Aires, Kyoto to Cancun, and Bali to Marrakesh, the COPs have criss-crossed the globe with the aim of finessing new agreements to see off the specter of climate change.

The United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels

These annual summits generate a lot of interest. The most recent in Glasgow attracted tens of thousands of participants. World leaders and celebrities often jet in and join the throng, while the global media reports every move in the corridors of power and concerned citizens protest outside. And yet the COPs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to UN-sponsored climate meetings.

If you add the several preparatory meetings in the lead-up to the COPs, plus a host of workshops and other events by various expert technical groups, you’re easily looking at several dozen gatherings every year.

Each event is supposed to help us move the needle on climate change, keeping our warming world within the 1.5o Celsius threshold beyond which we face potentially catastrophic consequences. But what, exactly, do all of these many meetings accomplish? Are they really worth all this time and effort?

The climate bandwagon: Roll up for the never-ending world tour!

There are plenty of arguments against letting the climate circus continue its endless circuit. For a start, science tells us that in spite of all the many meetings held, we’re still on a dangerous path. Groups like Carbon Action Tracker estimate that we’re currently on track for somewhere between 1.8-2.7 oC, with the lower number representing their most optimistic—and least likely—scenario. This is clearly well above where we need to be.

Another common complaint is that UN climate COPs are mostly just talking shops; in Greta Thunberg’s words, too much “blah, blah, blah” and not enough action. For all the millions, even billions, of words uttered at these events, they can often end in acrimony with little of substance agreed. Surely, the money used to hold these summits could be better spent on something else?

Even when agreement is reached, say the critics, there is no guarantee governments and other stakeholders will keep their pledges. History is littered with broken promises and diplomatic treaties that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

These arguments are all credible and we don’t disagree with any of them. But here’s the thing. For all their weaknesses and flaws, these summits actually matter a lot.

Like a rolling stone …

First, the United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels.

Take our global energy systems, for instance. From being a niche market in the 1990s that could not compete on cost with coal, oil and gas-generated electricity, in 2020 solar power became the cheapest source of electricity in history. The technology behind both solar and wind have moved on in leaps and bounds since the 1990s, thanks in large part to the flow-on effects of international lawmaking.

The much-maligned Kyoto Protocol of 1997, now largely superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement, brought the private sector firmly into the equation, launching carbon markets and spurring private sector investment that has begun to reshape our global economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels.

From electric vehicles to power generation to building design, the number of changes catalyzed by our international work on climate change are too many too list. Probably the best metric for judging the UN climate summits, however, is their impact on long-term global warming.

In recent years, projections for the expected long-term warming have fallen from as much as 4-6C before the Paris Agreement was inked, to around 1.8-2.7C now, assuming we implement pledges made at UN summits. And while anything above 1.5C is still very, very bad and the need for more action remains urgent, it’s not as unimaginably catastrophic as those higher numbers would be.

The worst approach … except for all the others

That’s not to say the UN climate process can’t be improved. Some people would like to see them shrunk back to their size in the early days, when just a couple of thousand people—key negotiators and a smaller number of other stakeholders—met in person. This, they say, would render it more manageable, reduce the carbon footprint, and make it less of a “circus.”

There are arguments on both sides here. While on the one hand it is true that arguably only a few hundred diplomats could handle the haggling over the official UN documents under negotiation, it is worth noting the impact those other participants can have.

For a start, many new pledges and promises are emerging on the sidelines of the official negotiations; “coalitions of the willing” wishing to make progress in specific sectors like, say, green investment, electric vehicles, reducing methane emissions or halting deforestation.

These alliances of governments, private companies and other stakeholders are able to make advances in specific sectors where the official UN negotiations—which require consensus among more than 190 governments—cannot. The groups involved in such coalitions choose to network, negotiate, and announce their plans during the COPs because of the public interest in these events.

Attend just one of these COPs and you will soon notice how many connections are made, partnerships are formed, and ideas generated, by participants not involved in the formal UN business of treatymaking. The benefits of these meetings and collaborations are hard to measure, but certainly considerable.

UN negotiations can often feel glacial. With the scientific community—and the daily news of extreme weather events around the world—reminding us of the need for urgency, it can feel like the discussions are going far too slowly. Obviously, there is much more to be done in a short space of time given that we are still hurtling towards some pretty frightening outcomes without more progress. Still, the UN process has made a difference and started to move the needle, even if is not yet happening fast enough.

And what are the alternatives? No single country or private entity stands a chance of dealing with this threat alone. Neither Amazon nor Google can conjure up an online answer to this type of problem. The US or China can’t “go it alone” and no coalition of governments has been able to deliver what’s needed. It is clear, therefore, that a multilateral, global process involving all governments and stakeholders presents our only chance of containing such a global threat.

Winston Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others. The same applies to multilateralism and climate change. It is flawed, frustrating and at times agonizingly slow. But it is still without doubt our last best hope of success.

Stepping up

So what needs to happen at COP27 in Egypt? Many are describing it as the “implementation COP” where we begin to turn pledges and well-laid plans into action. There will be pressure for countries to come with bolder measures to reduce their national emissions and for wealthier nations to bring more money to the table when it comes to supporting the developing world. In particular, more support for adaptation, as well as financial help dealing with the loss and damage already wrought by climate change, will need to be addressed promptly.

We will also need to see inspired leadership. In our new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy, we argue that dedicated and committed individuals can make a significant difference at these events. Examples from the recent past, such as the dedication of a handful of scientists and diplomats who helped create the Montreal Protocol and save the ozone layer, show that we can all play our part in turning the tide.

More recently Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN climate office and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, is an example of the type of leadership that will be required at the next COP. Figueres is an advocate of “stubborn optimism” and the need to blend urgency with action. We agree. Persistence, combined with a belief that there is still time to make a difference, should be our guiding light during this critical time.

Currently, the UK as hosts of COP26 still hold the climate presidency, which they will hand over officially to Egypt at the start of COP27 in November. Glasgow exceeded many insiders’ expectations, with Alok Sharma delivering a poised performance in spite of the UK’s recent domestic political turmoil. How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting?

As we look to COP27 and beyond, we wonder who the heroes of tomorrow might be? With time running out, we need environmental champions now more than ever.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022).

Excerpt:

A father and son remove their belongings from their flood-damaged home in Taluka, Pakistan. Credit: Research and Development Foundation (RDF)

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Sep 13 2022 (IPS)

Preparations for COP27 in November are proceeding apace and we are now well past the halfway mark between the preparatory meetings in June in Bonn and the start of the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. The agenda for Sharm El-Sheikh is complex and challenging. Furthermore, the meeting is taking place during a time of international turmoil. So, what are the factors influencing whether Sharm El-Sheikh can be a success? And what, exactly, does COP27 need to deliver?

Reasons for Optimism

Those looking for positive signs can name several. For a start, the recent passing of the Inflation Reduction Act in the US dedicated some $369 billion for climate and energy action—the largest investment in US history for tackling climate change.

The major weather events of recent months—from heatwaves across Africa, Asia and Europe to the catastrophic floods in Pakistan of the past few days—are a tragic reminder, if any were still needed, of the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for COP27 to deliver some strong, tangible outcomes

This will give the market more confidence to invest in green technology, whether it is solar, wind, microgrids, carbon capture and hydrogen, to name a few. It also shows commitment from the world’s largest economy and second largest polluter.

Second, the major weather events of recent months—from heatwaves across Africa, Asia and Europe to the catastrophic floods in Pakistan of the past few days—are a tragic reminder, if any were still needed, of the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for COP27 to deliver some strong, tangible outcomes.

A third, quite different factor may be the caliber of the incoming Egyptian presidency. While there has been some criticism of the host country’s human rights record and treatment of local NGOs in the lead up to COP27, some climate insiders have been impressed by the incoming presidency’s team led by Sameh Shoukry, Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs and COP27 president-designate, and Egyptian Minister for the Environment Dr. Yasmine Fouad, the COP Ministerial Coordinator and Envoy. Their quality has spurred hopes the Egyptian hosts could build on what is widely viewed as a fairly successful COP26 in Glasgow last November.

Dark Clouds Loom

Those are certainly reasons for hope. Yet the skeptics arguably have a stronger case. First, while the world’s climate crisis may have affirmed the need for urgency, the geopolitical and economic situation may be pushing in the opposite direction. The war in Ukraine has badly damaged relations between the West and Russia, while tensions over Taiwan have had a similar (if not so extreme) effect with China. These are hardly good conditions for building mutual trust and understanding—usually a prerequisite for a strong outcome in international negotiations.

One major side effect of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the West’s response, has been the energy crisis now engulfing Europe. There is also a predicted food crisis, not just from the war but also the impacts of climate change on harvests. Will this reinvigorate efforts at COP27 to find solutions or distract Western nations beset by inflation and a looming recession?

Closer to home, the latest round of UN climate talks, the Subsidiary Bodies meetings held in Bonn in June, were not wildly productive. A few procedural outcomes could not mask the ongoing disagreements in key areas like loss and damage compensation (including calls for a new fund), as well as slow progress in talks on adaptation and financing.

More recently, a G20 gathering of energy and climate ministers held in late August in Indonesia failed to approve a draft outcome document amid reports of disagreements and a “breakdown” in negotiations. This is a worrying outcome so close to the COP.

Another uncertainty, which may yet prove either negative or positive, is the change in leadership at the UN’s climate secretariat. With Patricia Espinosa stepping down in July, Simon Stiell was named as her successor in August. Mr. Stiell boasts an impressive CV, having held ministerial appointments in his home country of Grenada, as well as executive corporate jobs overseas. An engineer by training, he has been involved in the climate negotiations and knows the characters and issues well. His experience in government at a high level should help him engage with dignitaries and senior officials at COP27 and he will undoubtedly bring energy and vigor to the job at a critical time. Furthermore, coming from a small island developing state should give him greater legitimacy given their vulnerability to sea-level rise, thus ensuring his voice is heard loud and clear.

On the other hand, there is little time for him to get to grips with his new job if he is to have an impact on a COP that starts in early November. The runway for him to achieve liftoff at Sharm El-Sheikh is alarmingly short.

Key Topics for COP27 to Tackle

So what does COP27 need to deliver? The main criterion should be whether it produces concrete climate action. COP27 has been pitched as the “implementation” COP, where the goals of the Paris Agreement, helped by the rulebook adopted in Glasgow, begin to be delivered. What should this implementation look like?

Nationally Determined Contributions: Keeping 1.5 Alive: Revisiting countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDCs)—essentially their pledges and plans—at COP27 is important. Many feel it is imperative to maintain the pressure to improve the many NDCs delivered in time for COP26. However, only a dozen or so countries have submitted new or revised NDCs since Glasgow.

Of these, the new targets by Australia (43% by 2030 from 2005 levels) and India (45% by 2030 on 2005 levels) are noteworthy. But the pre-Glasgow “flood” of ambitious, headline-grabbing NDCs has now reduced to a trickle.

Depending on whether you just take the commitments by governments into account or include those of other stakeholders, we are currently still looking at a temperature rise of 1.8-2.7oC. Of course, this is much lower than estimates prior to Paris (2015), when some predicted a rise of 4-6oC by the end of the century. Nevertheless, those lower numbers still rely on all stakeholders delivering their promises. And they still take us well beyond 1.5oC.

For these reasons, more ambitious NDCs in the lead-up to, or during, COP27, would help deliver a major boost.

Climate Finance: The commitment made in Copenhagen in 2009 for US$100 billion a year for climate finance by 2020 was not achieved. This is particularly disappointing since the $100 billion was intended as a floor not a ceiling. Furthermore, most of the funding that was delivered came in the form of loans, not grants, which recipients would usually prefer.

It is evident, therefore, that we are locked in the basement when it comes to climate funding, and that major progress is needed for us to climb out of the hole.

The reality is that we need trillions, not billions, to address climate change and that government aid will not be enough. Still, progress by government negotiators on a new collective quantified goal on climate finance is needed. While this goal is not supposed to be agreed until 2024, COP27 will need to show significant progress and demonstrate we are heading firmly in the right direction.

Outside the government negotiations, observers will also be looking for progress by other stakeholders. For instance, the launch in 2021 of the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) as a coalition of the willing will need to play a critical role.

GFANZ represents two-fifths of the world’s financial assets, $130 trillion, under the management of banks, insurers and pension funds that have signed up to 2050 net-zero goals including limiting global warming to 1.5oC. This includes targets for asset managers (halve emissions by 2030), asset owners (by 2030 net zero aligned portfolios covering emissions reductions), banks (net zero emissions from all activities and portfolios by 2050) and insurers (by 2030 net zero aligned investment, insurance and reinsurance underwriting portfolios).

The realignment of the market is critical to achieving our 1.5oC goal. The state of play with GFANZ and what transparency systems have been set up should be critically reviewed by NGOs and other stakeholders at COP27, with clear signs that these goals are real and not just empty promises.

Article 6–the Carbon Market: Another outcome from Glasgow was adoption of the rulebook covering Voluntary Carbon Markets under the Paris Agreement. This should open the door to billions of dollars of investments (in 2021 it was $2 billion). Furthermore, the rules agreed in Glasgow were generally seen as fairly stringent.

This is important because demand is set to grow for carbon offsets (removing/reducing emissions in one place to compensate for emissions elsewhere). Yet if these offsets are of poor quality—as some currently are—then we will not have a chance of staying within our 1.5oC goal.

To be successful, this market will need to improve its approach. For instance, certification should ensure that tree planting and other similar efforts address both climate change and biodiversity as an integrated set of challenges. More broadly, COP27 will provide an opportunity to assess early progress as we move towards implementing Article 6.

Loss and Damage: Given the number of extreme climate events recently, a long-term issue for negotiators—compensation for loss and damage caused by climate change—has developed into a major, pressing challenge for COP27. While developing countries in particular are looking for rapid progress, the Glasgow Loss and Damage Dialogues in Bonn in June did not set a well-defined narrative.

Clear disagreement could be discerned around the use of existing funding arrangements to address the issue versus the creation of a new loss and damage financial facility, which many developing countries favor. Progress on this issue will be important at COP27.

Global Goal on Adaptation: The development of the objectives and modalities for this goal to support the implementation of the Paris Agreement was discussed in Bonn in June. While it is still early days in this discussion, COP27 should recognize the different levels of development countries are in and the challenges they face and how this might inform the Global Stocktaking process in future.

There was also a commitment in Glasgow to double adaptation funding by 2025. This should raise the amount to US$40 billion annually. Again, COP27 provides an opportunity to give some early signals this goal will be achieved.

A Voice for Africa: With Egypt hosting this meeting, COP27 provides an opportunity to amplify regional voices from Africa in the conversation and to highlight issues of global justice and equity. A successful COP would, in our view, show a growing solidarity between the Global North and South on issues such as financing and loss and damage.

Navigating Complexity

Clearly, COP27 faces some significant headwinds given the current geopolitical situation. Nevertheless, we believe the Egyptian presidency has an opportunity to build on a solid COP26 and that its efforts to focus on implementation and secure some tangible outcomes is the right choice.

With the United Arab Emirates set to hold the Presidency for COP28, it will be fascinating to see whether this triad of presidencies—the UK, Egypt, and UAE—can help guide this complex and critical period in the negotiations to some positive conclusions.

Felix Dodds and Chris Spence are co-editors of the new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge Press, 2022). It includes chapters on the climate negotiations held in Kyoto (1997), Copenhagen (2009) and Paris (2015).

Excerpt:

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa addresses the Bonn Climate Change Conference. Her second, three-year term as head of UNFCCC ends in July.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Jun 20 2022 (IPS)

Patricia Espinosa’s six years as Executive Secretary of the UN’s climate change secretariat ends on July 15th. During her time in charge, she has led efforts to operationalize the 2015 Paris Agreement and inject greater urgency into the diplomatic process. Although progress has been difficult, COP26 in Glasgow added some momentum and arguably brought the UN process to the start of its next stage: implementation.

As thoughts turn to this next, critical phase, several names are already circulating for who the next leader should be. These include the UK’s Alok Sharma, who chaired COP26, former GEF head Naoko Ishii of Japan, and Egypt’s Environment Minister Yasmine Fouad, Sri Mulyani Indrawati of Indonesia Finance Minister and Ambassador Liz Thomson from Barbados among others.

So, who should step into Espinosa’s shoes? And what sort of qualities will they need to succeed?

Location, Location

Any leader who believes it is all about them, or that they can charm or compel governments to act, will be doomed to failure. This is a particular risk for candidates who have been senior politicians in the past. They would have to curb the instinct to garner headlines for themselves. In this role the ability to listen, not just talk, will be critical

For any senior UN job there is a geopolitical calculation in play. With more being asked from the Global South in combating climate change, there is an argument to be made that the next Executive Secretary should hail from a developing country. Some observers feel this would help build trust in the climate talks.

There is an equity argument in play here, too. Historically, the first three UNFCCC leaders were Europeans: Michael Zammit Cutajar of Malta, then Joke Waller-Hunter and Yvo de Boer, both from the Netherlands. The next two came from the Americas: Christiana Figueres from Costa Rica, and Mexico’s Patricia Espinosa.

An argument could easily be made that the next leader should come from Asia-Pacific or Africa. Interestingly, the next two COPs will be in these regions: COP27 in Egypt and COP28 in the United Arab Emirates.

But which should it be: Africa or Asia-Pacific? In this respect, it is worth noting that two Africans already lead the other so-called Rio Conventions: Ibrahim Thiaw is responsible for the UN’s efforts on desertification, while Elizabeth Mrema heads-up biodiversity. Based on this, there is a strong case for appointing a developing country person from Asia or the Pacific or perhaps from the Small Island Developing States as they are hit worst by the impacts of climate change.

Seeking courageous, ego-free networkers

Irrespective of geography, what sort of qualities would a future leader need? We believe someone with excellent networking skills is essential, especially as we move from negotiating into implementation mode.

A naturally-charismatic figure who can build trusting relationships and bring people together will be essential. These are qualities Christiana Figueres deployed to great effect to help birth the Paris Agreement.

Any future UN climate leader will also need to be aware of the need for subtlety. In fact, we would suggest the next leader will need to be almost “egoless” in their pursuit of progress. The best UN leaders know when to let their partners—the politicians holding the COP presidency, for instance, as well as other governments heads—take center stage.

They know not only when to step up, but also when to step back and share the limelight. In this respect, Michael Zammit Cutajar—who led the UN climate secretariat in its early years—was a master, as was deputy leader Richard Kinley (2006-2017).

There is an important lesson here: any leader who believes it is all about them, or that they can charm or compel governments to act, will be doomed to failure. This is a particular risk for candidates who have been senior politicians in the past. They would have to curb the instinct to garner headlines for themselves. In this role the ability to listen, not just talk, will be critical.

The next Executive Secretary should ideally have been active in the climate negotiations for some time. This is a complicated field and they will need to have a good understanding of not just the issues or political positions of various country groupings, but also the people who are doing the negotiating.

Diplomacy is always a complex web of geopolitical positions, but underneath this are individuals. An effective leader will get to know the people involved and seek to build personal trust. Having someone who already knows the key individuals involved will help them hit the ground running.

The role will also require both courage and persistence. These are qualities we believe are essential for any successful leader when it comes to multilateral environmental agreements. It is something we explore in-depth in our book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage. Yes, the science is telling us we must supercharge our efforts and sprint to the finish line. However, persistence and the knowledge that all diplomacy is a marathon will be needed by whoever takes on this important role.

Finally, this is such an important appointment that we would propose the hiring process be undertaken in the open. What we mean by this is that there could be “hustings” for member states and stakeholders to question the candidates, as there is for the UN Secretary General’s position. “Town hall” meetings with staff would also be useful so their input can be considered.

It is not hyperbole to suggest this appointment comes at a critical time for our planet. The need for inspired, courageous and exceptional leadership has never been greater.

We wish the selectors—and their choice—the best of luck.

Chris Spence and Felix Dodds are co-editors of Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Felix is also Adjunct Professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC) and an Associate Fellow at the Tellus Institute. Chris is an environmental consultant and award-winning writer. Both have been involved in the UN climate negotiations since the 1990s.

Excerpt:

This year has given us the most vivid insights into what the new world will look like, whether it is droughts and fires in California or the latest tragic wildfires in Greece, as temperatures get so hot that even a small spark sets them off. Credit: Miriet Abrego/IPS.

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Aug 11 2021 (IPS)

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres is absolutely right to call the latest UN climate report a “Code Red for Humanity.” Without immediate and serious action, we are condemning future generations to a dismal future.

Already, we have wasted too much time. Next year, it will be half a century since first UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm warned us of the risks to our environment from human activities. More than 30 years have passed since the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its first report (the latest report is its sixth). Even that first report in 1990 warned of humanity’s impact on greenhouse gas concentrations and planetary warming. Again, our actions over subsequent decades have been woefully inadequate.

If we were to permit a 2 °C increase in temperature, then the record temperatures recorded recently in the United States and unexpectedly in Canada would become 14 times more likely to happen again in future, both there and elsewhere

This year has given us the most vivid insights into what the new world will look like, whether it is droughts and fires in California or the latest tragic wildfires in Greece, as temperatures get so hot that even a small spark sets them off.

The IPCC report also looks at heat waves. If we were to permit a 2 °C increase in temperature, then the record temperatures recorded recently in the United States and unexpectedly in Canada would become 14 times more likely to happen again in future, both there and elsewhere.

There has already been an increase in the number and the strength of. Flooding is happening more often and again in places not expected as rain falls in a different way to how it did before These heavy downpours, most recently in Germany, show that the flood defenses were built for a different type of downpour and will required huge infrastructural overhauls if this is to be the new normal.

Then there is the cascading effect if the forests and vegetation have burnt down. When the rain comes again there is now nothing to hold the water back, meaning floods will have a greater impact on already devastated communities.

The key here is water. The UN’s climate negotiations only added water as a key issue to the negotiations in 2010 due to campaigning by the multi stakeholder efforts of the Water and Climate Coalition. The approach to greenhouse targets missed a huge opportunity to address the key sectors that were either contributing to the problem or would be impacted by it.

No Minor Injuries

Why are so many political leaders either in denial about the need for urgent action, or simply paying it lip service? The current sense of denial is unsettlingly reminiscent of the comedy film Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In one painfully funny scene, a mysterious dark knight bars the path of our hero, King Arthur. The two fight and King Arthur expects the knight to stand aside when he cuts off the knight’s arm. But the knight refuses, claiming at first that it is merely a “scratch”. The fight resumes and the knight loses his other arm. Again, he refuses to submit or step aside, claiming it is “just a flesh wound.”

This is where we stand with climate change. Already, we have inflicted great injuries on our planet and we need to respond accordingly. We cannot pretend the globe has just suffered a few minor cuts and scrapes. If our world was the dark knight, you could argue that we have, through our actions, already severed a limb. We must cease our attacks and treat this as a global emergency for our global health. No band aid solution or plastering over the damage will do. Inaction will not cut it.

In a health emergency, time is of the essence. You cannot wait to call an ambulance or try to carry on as normal. If you do, the patient may not survive. The IPCC’s latest report shows we must act immediately and take the strongest action possible.

A Call to Action

So, what can be done with the UN IPCC’s new warning?

First, those countries that have not yet submitted new Nationally Determined Contribution targets under the UN’s Paris agreement should do so immediately.

Secondly, developed countries should increase their contribution promised in 2015 for funding from $100 billion a year for climate work to at least $200 billion by the Climate Summit in Egypt in 2022.

Thirdly, and even more importantly, governments need to aggressively focus on the corporate sector and its responsibilities. This should include making it a requirement for all companies listed on any Stock Exchange to have to produce their sustainability strategy and their Environmental, Social and Governance Report (ESG) every year. This should be a requirement for remaining on the stock exchange. This should also require them to produce science-based targets to achieve net zero greenhouse gases by 2050. Companies’ voluntary, self-created goals are no longer sufficient.

Perhaps it is even worth considering having Stock Exchanges publish the total carbon of their members and to start considering them putting a cap on what the Exchange would allow and what their contribution to net zero will be.

Fourthly, the role of local and sub-national governments needs to be supported and enhanced. Actors at the local and regional levels are critical to delivering what we need. They need to be supported to set their own 2030 targets and 2050 net zero strategies. To enable them to achieve this, central governments will need to support them and provide the extra funding. All planning decisions should be based on the new projections of climate change and building in flood plains should stop.

Fifthly, governments should review the impacts on climate change of all existing policies and not proceed unless they are within the strategy to deliver the NDC and the 2030 and 2050 Net Zero strategies. In short, governments need to start incorporating climate change into all of their thinking across all sectors. The problem is too vast, and too urgent, to do otherwise.

Sixthly, all governments need to urgently review their disaster risk reduction strategies ahead of a major UN conference on this subject scheduled for next May in Bali.

At all levels of government we need to review the interlinkages between water, agriculture, energy and climate change to ensure that planning is climate proofed. Without accounting for each of these sectors, the solutions will not be big enough to meet the challenge.

Finally, as voters, taxpayers and citizens, we need to press our political leaders to put climate change at the top of their list of priorities. They need to be reminded that it is not just future generations that will judge them and their policies—we can do so, too.

A Code Red Emergency

We have a decade to turn this around. Already, we have seen global temperatures rise by 1.09 °C. The IPCC suggests we may pass the all-important threshold of 1.5 °C by 2034 to 2040.

In fact, things may be even more pressing. The report that came out on Monday was the “summary for policymakers”, which means it was a negotiated document with both progressive nations and more climate sceptic and cautious countries negotiating the exact wording. While the findings were certainly scientifically sound, it is quite likely the language could have been—and probably should have been—even more urgent. We would do well to remember what some politicians have said over the last few years; if they have denied the science in the past then now is surely the time for them make way for others who are willing to give this issue the weight it so clearly deserves.

Felix Dodds is an Adjunct Professor at the Water Institute at the University of North Carolina where he is a Principal Investigator for the Belmont funded Re-Energize project. He co-coordinated the Water and Climate Change Coalition at the Climate Negotiations (2007-2012). His new book is Tomorrow’s People and New Technology: Changing How We Live Our Lives (October 2021).

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many climate summits and other United Nations negotiations over the past three decades.

Boris Johnson’s recent pledge to cut emissions by 78 % by 2035 (compared with 1990 levels) is impressive in its ambition. Opponents are asking how such momentous pledges can be achieved. Credit: Edgardo Ayala / IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Jun 11 2021 (IPS)

How are preparations for the Glasgow Climate Summit in November proceeding? Currently, we are more than halfway through three weeks of virtual preparatory negotiations taking place in June. These online talks are challenging in their own right, just as many had feared  (see: ‘Should the 2021 Climate Summit in Glasgow Still Take Place?’). 

As we enter the final few months before Glasgow, however, there is room both for optimism and deep concern. Curiously, both of these emotions center squarely on the critical role of the host government. 

The success or failure of a climate summit of this magnitude depends greatly on the role of the host government—or “Presidency”. In the past, we have seen both unfortunate missteps from the Presidency, such as Copenhagen in 2009, as well as untrammeled successes, like Paris in 2015. 

The success or failure of a climate summit of this magnitude depends greatly on the role of the host government—or “Presidency”. In the past, we have seen both unfortunate missteps from the Presidency, such as Copenhagen in 2009, as well as untrammeled successes, like Paris in 2015

There are several common elements that make up a good or even a great Presidency. First, the ability to build trust among member states is critical. While this sounds simple in theory, in practice it is immensely difficult, even without the added complication of a global pandemic creating both practical difficulties and showing once again the deep rifts between wealthy countries, which have hoovered up the bulk of vaccines, and developing nations. Another feature of a strong Presidency is its careful planning, both substantively and logistically. Can the UK deliver?

Always look on the bright side

Let’s start with reasons to be optimistic. First, the UK Presidency has made one very positive and intelligent move. Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s recent pledge to cut emissions by 78 % by 2035 (compared with 1990 levels) is impressive in its ambition. It set a very high bar for other nations and could, potentially, give the UK a strong moral foundation for asking more of others. 

Another positive for the UK is the enduring quality of its civil service. While the UK’s politicians seem to have discovered a penchant for tripping on every possible banana skin in recent years, the reputation of the country’s public servants remains high. The performance of the National Health Service (NHS) during the pandemic is just one example. More relevant to the Glasgow Summit, however, is the caliber of its diplomatic corps and wider foreign service, which remains exemplary. 

How to lose friends and irritate people

Set against these positives, though, are several worrying facts. 

First, the UK is the assuming the Presidency in the immediate aftermath of Brexit, a process that has left both Britain and its EU neighbors both bruised and a low point in their relationship. Its exit from the EU could hardly be described as one that has built strong and positive relations with the remaining 27 countries. These are countries the UK will need onside to make Glasgow a success.

Secondly, the UK’s recent decision to cut  development aid from 0.7% to 0.5 % Gross National Income (GNI) feels like extraordinarily bad timing..

Development Aid

In October 1970, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution supporting the commitment to the 0.7% GNI for development aid from developed countries. While developed countries had agreed in theory, however, few were willing to put their money where their mouths were.

The UK was one of these few. In 2013, the Liberal Democrat MP Michael Moore introduced the Private Members Bill to the UK parliament that would enshrine the 0.7% GNI development aid target into law. In  theory, this would protect it from being a bargaining tool in any future government budget discussions. 

The law was passed in March 2015 under the Conservative/Liberal coalition government. All major political parties at the last election in 2019 committed to standing by this development target. 

Surprisingly, this changed in November 2020 with the Conservative UK Finance Minister’s Spending Review. The review indicated that in 2021 the government would reduce its allocation of development aid to 0.5 % (GNI). This has resulted in a huge cut: US$5.7 billion in aid will no longer be available. While the consequences are yet to be felt, it can hardly fail to be momentous. To put it into context, this cut is more than the combined ODA of Austria, Finland, Ireland, New Zealand, Iceland, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic. 

Up until the UK’s startling decision to cut its ODA, it has held the moral high ground on this issue. In fact, it was one of only six countries to have reached the United Nations goal of 0.7 %–and the only G7 country to do so. This gave the UK a great boost for the upcoming Climate Summit, where finance will be a critical issue. 

Tory misgivings 

Now Johnson’s government has surrendered this advantage, many experts are wondering how it will affect the host government’s efforts to win over the international community that will descend on Glasgow in November? Such cuts will have profound, on-the-ground impacts in many developing countries—hardly a smart way to “win friends and influence people.”

Some of Johnson’s own Tory colleagues have serious misgivings. While a possible parliamentary rebellion seems unlikely, a coalition of Conservative MPs led by former International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell, and including two former Conservative Prime Ministers, is opposed to the cut, viewing it as a self-inflicted wound. The Conservatives have a majority of 80 in the House of Commons, which means if Conservative 41 MPs supported the reinstatement of the 0.7% then the government could face a humiliating climbdown. 

Logistical confusion 

(Drawn from a briefing produced by our colleague Yunus Arikan from ICLEI who follows the UNFCCC negotiations as the focal point of Local government and municipal authorities (LGMA), one of the 9 stakeholders climate constituencies.) 

Another potential pitfall in the lead-up to Glasgow lies in the meeting’s arrangements and logistics. By early June, publicly available information for participants in Glasgow was in short supply. 

For instance, there was no information yet on the capacity of the Glasgow Blue Zone (the conference location where negotiations will take place) with no breakdown for governments and observers of layout and costs of pavilion and office spaces. 

Special Glasgow Summit visas are currently available only for Blue Zone delegations and visa applications have to be submitted to the UK embassies starting from August. At this time, however, no information is available to facilitate visa applications for Green Zone events (where businesses and civil society will operate). Clearly, the clock is ticking on all of this.

Current UK COVID-19 measures ask for a minimum two weeks of quarantine upon arrival for most international participants,. Does this mean visa applications have to be adjusted accordingly as well? Will the policy be altered ahead of the Summit for government officials and other participants? This is not yet clear.

The Glasgow Summit is scheduled to have a Heads of State session on 1-2 November and a High-Level Ministerial Session the following week. No specific arrangement has yet been announced for access of observers during either of these segments, which again makes planning difficult for many non-negotiator participants.

The UN Climate Change Secretariat is expected to announce calls for special events (known as “side events”) on the UNFCCC-accreditation restricted Blue Zone 29 June. The results will be announced on 30 September which will leave less then a month´s time for speakers and organizers to secure their vaccines-visas-travels-accommodation for Glasgow – which will be a challenge in itself for any COP or major intergovernmental conference in normal times. It is also not clear what specific COVID-19 measures will apply for side events and meeting rooms, which influences the number of speakers and participants.

There is also no information yet on whether the UK Presidency and/or the UN Climate Secretariat will offer special vaccinations for participants, or whether observers will enjoy such benefits. Even if they do, the basis of selection will need to be clarified and it is also not clear which countries will accept such offers. Clearly, many logistical matters need to be clarified in a short space of time.

Details, details

The Glasgow Summit will mark an important moment for Boris Johnson’s Government. After the perceived foreign policy missteps over Brexit, Glasgow represents Johnson’s best opportunity to show that his vision of a new, global Britain can become a reality. The Prime Minister has apparently set great store by showcasing what his country could become in a post-Brexit future. If managed correctly, it could be a crowning success of his leadership. 

Yet if he is to burnish such a crown and make it gleam once more, he will need to ensure the logistical details are taken care of, and promptly. Furthermore, he will need to provide more details for how the UK will meet its ambitious 2035 emissions targets, since opponents are already asking how such momentous pledges can be achieved. Bringing the full weight of his country’s diplomatic skills in the lead-up to Glasgow will also be needed. This is no time for half-measures. It should be a complete team effort. 

Johnson should consider changing tack on his government’s ODA cuts. If this reduction was repositioned as a one-off, single-year adjustment, an announcement to reinstate some or all of the 0.7 % commitment could be timed in a way that would give Glasgow—and Johnson’s own reputation—a major boost. 

Finally, it looks very likely that Convention on Biological Diversity Summit in China may go ahead with only Ambassadors from country embassies in China and no delates or stakeholders from outside China. The Biodiversity Summit starts three weeks before the Glasgow Climate Summit – it makes you think – is this an indicator of what is going to happen?

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the Way we Live Our Lives will be out in September. He is coauthor of Only One Earth with Maurice Strong and Michael Strauss and Negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals with Ambassador David Donoghue and Jimena Leiva Roesch.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many climate summits and other United Nations negotiations over the past three decades.

Credit: Guillermo Flores/IPS

By Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, May 27 2021 (IPS)

The past few weeks brought a burst of optimism on the climate front. It began on April 18 with the US-China announcement on climate cooperation. This was followed in quick succession by the EU Parliament’s vote to cut emissions 55% by 2030, the UK’s promise of a 78% cut by 2035, Japan nearly doubling their commitment from 26% to 46% based on 2013 levels and US President Biden’s pledge of a 50-52% reduction, also by 2030 (compared with 2005 levels).

Since such cuts offer a clear pathway to limit temperature growth, only the most ardent cynic would deny it has been a great start to the run up to Glasgow. Not to mention the announcement by a court in the Netherlands as we wrote this article (26th of May) that Shell will need to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030 on 2019 levels this could result in a wave of court action against fossil fuel companies.

The Glasgow Summit will be judged, in part at least, on how it acts as a catalyst not only for greater ambition in emissions reductions, but in ensuring they are being consistently measured. Some countries, especially developing countries, will need significant financial support for such actions, and this should be another outcome from Glasgow

An important question now is how do we use the Glasgow Climate Summit to build on governments’ good intentions?

As we noted in a recent article published in IPS, the limitations on in-person meetings in a Covid-hit world are a particular problem for such a complex, high-stakes process. The Bureau managing the preparatory process for Glasgow recently announced its intention to hold virtual “informal meetings” starting next week. While we welcome the resumption of such discussions under the UN umbrella and can see a benefit to online discussions, these will only get us so far.

We hope diplomats, key stakeholders and journalists will be able to meet in person prior to the formal start of the Glasgow Summit, perhaps in October under a negotiating ‘bubble’ in Italy (which is hosting the G20 on the 30th and 31st of October) and the UK (which is hosting the Summit from November 1-12).

The current work being undertaken on COVID vaccine passports should make such in-person gatherings quite feasible, with the EU advancing plans in recent days to introduce them as early as July Furthermore, the UK’s offer to provide vaccinations to developing country delegations is a welcome move and should be expanded to other stakeholders.

National stakeholder climate alliances

What else could help advance progress in the lead-up to Glasgow? We would advocate that stakeholder coalitions at the national level could play a significant role.

Such coalitions have already shown their value. In 2017, Michael Bloomberg and former California Governor Jerry Brown launched America’s Pledge and the America is All In coalition in response to President Trump’s announcement that the United States would pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement.

The America is All In coalition has now grown to 147 cities, 1157 businesses, 3 states, 2 tribal nations, and almost 500 universities, faith groups, cultural institutions, and healthcare organizations. This is a powerful—and still growing—coalition committed to helping deliver at least a 50% reduction of 2005 emissions levels by 2030.

Meanwhile, Accelerating America’s Pledge—a report published by Bloomberg Philanthropies in 2020—identifies not only areas where work needs to be done but also progress to date. This work has helped build a strong base for President Biden’s recent announcement of a US Nationally Determined Contribution at a reduction of 52% in 2030 on 2005 levels.

Such partnerships and pledges are also happening internationally. In 2019, the Climate Ambition Alliance of Cities, Regions and Business, reported commitments to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

This Alliance, which includes 992 businesses, 449 cities, 21 regions, 505 universities and 38 of the biggest investors, has made a significant pledge because it represents economic stakeholders covering a quarter of the global carbon emissions. This type of coalition helped pointed the way for national governments and others to take on similar goals.

Such coalitions can also be a model for how stakeholders could act in the lead-up to Glasgow. The welcome promises of many governments can be supported and held more accountable by a coalition of key national stakeholders.

For instance, imagine what national coalitions of stakeholders in perhaps the 20 world’s largest emitting countries might do when it comes to ensuring governments follow up on their pledges with clear, actionable policies and financing to achieve the promised cuts.

Furthermore, national stakeholder coalitions could encourage governments to submit new, more ambitious pledges, the so-called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), in the lead-up to Glasgow.

Where a government may be lagging, such national coalitions can help maintain the pressure by taking on their own commitments for their city, region, or business sector.

Such coalitions have also received strong support from the United Nations. “All countries, companies, cities and financial institutions must commit to net zero, with clear and credible plans to achieve this, starting today,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged in March.

Independent monitoring and verification

One specific area stakeholder coalitions can play a role—both domestically and on the international scene—is in pushing for consistent monitoring, measuring, and reporting of emissions. This is an area that was not resolved by the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and yet is critical if we are to ensure full transparency and accountability in meeting government pledges.

The Glasgow Summit will be judged, in part at least, on how it acts as a catalyst not only for greater ambition in emissions reductions, but in ensuring they are being consistently measured. Some countries, especially developing countries, will need significant financial support for such actions, and this should be another outcome from Glasgow.

The UN-supported Race to Zero campaign is playing a useful role in this area. The largest alliance of non-state actors committing to achieving net zero emissions before 2050, Race to Zero recently published a report setting out criteria for how stakeholders can set, measure, and report on net zero commitments.

Interestingly, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, a group of 160 financial institutions with a collective US$70 trillion in assets, is taking a similar approach.

Mark Carney, UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and Prime Minister Johnson’s Climate Finance Advisor for COP26, is chairing this new grouping.

If these national coalitions are to be taken seriously, there may need to be a national as well as international independent monitoring and verification. Reporting and verification should happen annually.

Collaboration in our cities may be the key to unlocking Glasgow’s potential

Cities could be critical to Glasgow’s success. “Cities use a large proportion of the world’s energy supply and are responsible for around 70 per cent of global energy-related greenhouse gas emissions which trap heat and result in the warming of Earth,” UN-Habitat Executive Director, Maimunah Mohd Sharif, said in 2019.

Starting in the cities of the 20 top emitters might be a good first step in aligning national stakeholders to the Paris Climate Agreement. Cities have the potential not only to be a powerful engine for change; they can also keep the world moving forward even if national political leadership in a country is lacking or is affected by a change in direction following an election.

The recent positive announcements by some governments for stronger NDCs is to be commended. However, only when all stakeholders are engaged and included will we be able to create a sustainable way to live together on this ‘Only One Earth’ we have.

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the Way we Live Our Lives will be out in September. He is coauthor of Only One Earth with Maurice Strong and Michael Strauss and Negotiating the Sustainable Development Goals with Ambassador David Donoghue and Jimena Leiva Roesch.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many COPs and other UNFCCC negotiations over the past three decades.

Currently, the Climate Summit in Glasgow—COP26—is slated for 1-12 November 2021. But will even this later date work for many participants?

By Felix Dodds, Michael Strauss, and Chris Spence
NEW YORK, Apr 1 2021 (IPS)

Among the COVID-19 pandemic’s many damaging impacts, could a halt to international progress on environmental issues be added to the list?

A year ago, the Glasgow Climate Summit—originally scheduled for late 2020—was postponed to 2021, along with its preparatory meetings. This wasn’t the only critical intergovernmental process impacted. For instance, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the U.N. treaty on the high seas were also moved.

With uncertainty over travel and safety continuing into 2021, the postponement of meetings has continued, with the United Nations Environment Assembly and the Convention on Biological Diversity conference both being moved back many months.

The idea that negotiations could be held virtually has been largely ruled out. While it has worked for some processes on a limited basis, most experts acknowledge climate negotiations are too complex, sensitive, and high-stakes to be conducted over Zoom or WhatsApp

Currently, the Climate Summit in Glasgow—COP26—is slated for 1-12 November 2021. But will even this later date work for many participants?

Even though there is increased optimism in the US and Europe that they may get their populations mostly vaccinated by July or August 2021, that will not be true for many other regions. The varied pace in vaccine distribution is another example, if we needed it, of the disparities faced by developed and developing countries.

In an opinion piece by IMF Chief Kristalina Georgieva for CNN Business Perspectives on 7 March, she said:

“Even in the best-case scenario, most developing economies are expected to reach widespread vaccine coverage only by the end of 2022 or beyond.”

Why COP26 Needs to be In-Person and Inclusive

What does this mean for COP26? The idea that negotiations could be held virtually has been largely ruled out. While it has worked for some processes on a limited basis, most experts acknowledge climate negotiations are too complex, sensitive, and high-stakes to be conducted over Zoom or WhatsApp. They require face-to-face discussions to have any chance of meaningful success.

Furthermore, our experience in the past has told us that climate talks need to be inclusive and engage as many governments and stakeholders as possible, both in the lead-up to the conference and at the “main event” itself.

For instance, previous conferences in Cancun (2010) and Paris (2015) are remembered for their inclusivity and painstaking preparations, while less successful meetings such as those in Copenhagen (2009) or The Hague (2000) were unable to achieve this. If virtual negotiations are not a realistic option, then, it’s clear vaccines will need to be made available for government negotiators to attend and negotiate.

What about stakeholder groups who want to be there in person to lobby or put pressure on their governments? Will they be allowed to attend? If so, under what conditions? These are key questions that will need to be answered soon if COP26 is to have any chance of delivering what so many people want it to do.

Timing is Everything: The Case for Postponement

Already rescheduled once, COP26 is now timetabled for 1-12 November. Furthermore, the two preparatory meetings originally scheduled for 2020 were postponed to 2021, meaning there is still much to be done.

The first preparatory meeting is currently due to happen from 31 May to 10 June. This is now in doubt and a decision will be taken in the next few weeks on whether to proceed.

With such uncertainty, it could be argued that COP26 should be postponed again. Surely this would be better than trying to undertake preparatory meetings virtually, or holding a COP26 that is so diminished by travel restrictions that the meeting is but a shadow of its usual size and scope.

We hope those making these decisions take into consideration both arguments of inclusivity and the need for careful, thorough preparations as they continue to review this matter.

A Roadmap for a November COP

Should COP26 be held in November as currently planned, there are, however, some ways to improve its chances of success.

First, concerted efforts should be made to coordinate and strengthen the outcomes from President Biden’s planned Washington Climate Summit on 22 April, the G7 meeting in June (to be hosted by the UK) and the G20 Meetings in October (to be hosted by Italy).

Together, these could generate useful momentum and begin to refocus high-level political discussion on the climate crisis.

Secondly, the UNFCCC process could review its pre-COP26 scheduling to provide more time for in-person discussions in the lead-up to Glasgow. For instance, there is already agreement that a UNFCCC meeting will be held in Milan from 30 September to 2 October.

What if this already-scheduled event was to be expanded to at least 10 October? If this event continued through the month of October, it could have an even greater impact, allowing key negotiators ample time to prepare in person for Glasgow.

One challenge may be the timing of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s conference, now rescheduled for 11-24 October. Decision-makers will need to figure out whether the UNFCCC could meet concurrently with the CBD.

If it is not thought possible to run the two events at the same time, there are still some creative ways forward. For instance, the CBD could play an important role in accelerating discussions on nature-based solutions for climate change.

This is one of the key issues both the UK and Italy have identified for COP26. Informal negotiations could continue during the CBD meeting and the UNFCCC could reconvene formally on 25 October to see if agreement on any informal decisions could be progressed before the G20 on 30 and 31 October. In fact, the G20 meeting in Rome dovetails nicely into COP26, and could provide a welcome final impetus for it.

If preparatory meetings did take place through much of October in Italy or elsewhere, it would set up an almost continuous negotiating forum through to the start of November for national governments’ experts, diplomats and political leaders—as well as concerned scientists, business leaders, labor groups and NGOs—to meet in-person.

If planned carefully, it would mean only two or three geographically-proximate locations in Italy and the UK would be involved, which should help greatly in terms of dealing with the complexities of travel involving vaccinations, Covid testing, and so on.

In effect, it could create a climate negotiating ‘bubble’ where safe pandemic protocols would be possible and the necessary actors would have time to interact extensively and negotiate both broad agreements and details.

The G20 would also be an excellent end-point for intensifying pressure on countries to increase their National Determined Contributions as they head north for the Glasgow meeting just a short flight away.

What Key Issues Need Resolving at COP26?

At the most recent UN Climate Summit—COP25 in Madrid in 2019—several controversial issues remained unresolved.

In some cases, the negotiating gaps are wide. Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, told journalists, “in the 25 years that I have been at every COP, I have never seen the gap bigger between the inside and the outside.”

Some of these issues are quite technical. For instance, reporting guidelines on annual inventories for developed countries need to be reviewed. Governments will have to agree common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of greenhouse gases and address the emissions from international aviation and maritime transport.

There are also outstanding issues relating to land use, land-use change and forestry, as well as market and non-market mechanisms under the Convention.

These aren’t the issues you generally find in the mainstream media, which tends to focus on where we are on National Determined Contributions (country targets) and the contributions to Green Climate Funds, which should have reached US$100 billion a year by 2020.

Of course, the question of NDC ambition and the Green Climate Funds are absolutely essential, and progress will be key at COP26. However, the more technical issues are also critical if we are to be sure we are measuring progress consistently and fairly.

The Green Climate Funds may prove politically sensitive at COP26. For instance, the host country last year indicated a shift from an ODA contribution of 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI.

The timing is problematic, to say the least, and has been challenged in a letter by over 3000 global health experts warning that the cut will hit “some of the world’s most complex and challenging global health problems”. If you add to that the damage it will do to climate finance, are we moving to a perfect storm instead of a path to a more sustainable planet to live on?

Felix Dodds is a sustainable development advocate and writer. His new book Tomorrow’s People and New Technologies: Changing the way we live, travel, entertain and socialize will be out in September. He is the coeditor of Climate and Energy Insecurity: The Challenge of Peace, Security and Development with Andrew Higham and Richard Sherman.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012). He is co-author of ‘Only One Earth: The Long Road via Rio to Sustainable Development’ (Earthscan, Taylor & Francis), with Felix Dodds and Maurice F. Strong.

Chris Spence is an environmental consultant, writer and author of the book, Global Warming: Personal Solutions for a Healthy Planet. He is a veteran of many COPs and other UNFCCC negotiations over the past three decades.

Excerpt:

By Felix Dodds and Michael Strauss
NEW YORK, Mar 25 2020 (IPS)

With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the planet and the governments of both wealthy and poorer nations overwhelmed by the demands of managing a response, the scheduling of this year’s critical UN Climate Summit is suddenly in doubt.

COP26 (formally, the 26th annual Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is planned for Glasgow, Scotland (UK) from 9-20 November. It will be the culmination of five years of negotiations since the historic 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

More than 100 presidents and prime ministers are expected to present their nations’ plans for carrying out the sweeping environmental, economic and energy changes necessary to keep the Earth’s warming to survivable levels.

In all, over 30,000 government delegates, intergovernmental officials and stakeholder representatives are preparing to attend.

The agenda of COP26 is deep and urgent. Besides reporting how they plan to reduce oil, coal and gas production and increase renewable energy to limit global temperature rise to below 2°C (and preferably 1.5°C), governments must agree how to calculate whether each is fulfilling its pledges, what steps to take to deal with those which haven’t, and whether the total reductions agreed to are sufficient to avoid catastrophic climate impacts (so far they’re not).

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US

At Glasgow, governments must also fulfill the  commitment of the $100 billion a year they promised to help developing countries.  Those funds are to cope with the devastating impacts of sea level rise, intense storms, extended droughts, erratic cold and heat waves that have already begun to disproportionately affect poorer nations – and to help shift those nations’ energy production to renewables.

Governments must decide what role private business and the financial sector play in contributing climate funding. And they must approve the so-called ‘Paris Rulebook’ on implementation guidelines for zero emissions and climate resilience by 2050.

Progress on all of these issues is lagging far behind schedule.

Last year’s COP25, in Madrid, was expected to agree on a formula to resolve key issues. Instead it became the longest COP conference ever, failed to resolve virtually any issue, and passing them on to an already pressured COP26.

Meanwhile, the pace of the climate crisis continues to accelerate, with another year of record temperatures, catastrophic hurricanes, and unanticipated rapidly melting glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland. And the public demand for action to meet the urgency escalated as well, led by a resurgent environmental youth movement inspired by Greta Thunberg.

The argument for a November meeting

So it would seem more necessary than ever to follow through with the November COP26 schedule.

For a world already decades behind the optimal carbon-reduction calendars suggested by environmentalists in the 1990s, the risks of further delay are huge.  We may already be on the verge of irreversible feedback loops like runaway deforestation in the Amazon, unstoppable desertification in China and the Sahel, massive shifts in thermal ocean currents that moderate the winters in Europe, and decalcification that could crash the populations of the world’s sea life.

With major fossil fuel corporations digging in to avoid action, taking the pressure off governments is an opening to fatal procrastination. As the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has calculated and Ms. Thunberg has tirelessly pointed out, the world only has eight years left in its allowable ‘carbon budget’ if it continues to emit about 42 gigatons of CO2 every year. So drastic reductions are necessary. Now.

The argument for postponing COP26

And yet. The world faces a sudden major pandemic that will impact all countries and affect all citizens. Millions will likely become ill and thousands will likely die. The focus of all countries is on containing the COVID 19 virus – as it should be.

Governments everywhere are enacting policies that would never have been imagined. Financial markets are crashing. The US Treasury Department has suggested a potential 20 percent unemployment rate.

Massive restrictions on public movement are being imposed and trillions of dollars in financial stimulus and subsidies are being spent. Public and private scientific expertise is being marshaled to solve medical emergencies.

The responses to the pandemic will impact the negotiations on climate. With only seven weeks to go before a key two week preparatory meeting in Bonn, virtually all flights to Europe are cancelled. It may be only be a matter of weeks before Bonn itself is postponed, or at best conducted virtually – which is a far more cumbersome process.

A second preparatory meeting, which could be expanded to take on the added work load, is planned in early October.  But it is scheduled to meet in Italy. Is it realistic that the Italian government will be sufficiently back to normal in order to host such a session by October?

In this context, it will be extraordinarily difficult for governments to assign the necessary political or economic resources to achieve a successful climate meeting this November.

​Even before the pandemic, it was already going to require exquisite timing, energy and finesse to achieve any degree of success in Glasgow. Besides the pre-negotiation failures, the willful climate obstructionism and catastrophic incompetence of the US government under Donald Trump, plus the self-imposed chaos of Boris Johnson’s Brexit in the UK, have left two of the world’s necessary climate nations nearly immobilized.

The only positive-case political scenario for a November COP would call for Democrats to sweep the US presidency and Senate on November 3 (one day before it becomes official that Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement) and barely a week before the November 9 opening at Glasgow.

Even if that were to happen, Trump would still be in office until January and his policy would prevail. (Indeed, one could visualize a defeated Trump spitefully trying to wreak havoc through obstructionist interventions by his negotiating team.)

And even if everything went well, because of the lack of prepared agreements, the most that could be hoped for from a November COP  is another seemingly ambitious and robust, but in reality a very amorphous Conference declaration on principles and promises.

How to postpone but increase momentum

Many respected voices currently arguing against a postponement are understandably concerned that any delay will take the pressure off governments to keep building on their commitments. It’s a valid fear.

The answer is to not take the pressure off governments. Yes, postpone the meeting, but instead of a full COP in November in Glasgow, the parties can schedule an additional special high-level Preparatory Meeting, on those same days in November, in Bonn where the UNFCCC is housed.

Such a special Preparatory-Meeting could resume negotiations working through the backlog of unfinished business from COP25 and the cancelled meetings in 2020. It would still be energized by any positive results from the US elections.

The full COP26 in Glasgow can then be rescheduled in 2021. While it might be possible to schedule it for Spring of 2021, the more realistic and likely option would be to simply move the current sequence of 2020 meetings  (June, in Bonn. October, in Rome) to the same calendar in 2021.

When COP26 does then meet in November 2021 the world will presumably have emerged from the coronavirus crisis. Economies will be re-starting, so Finance Ministries will be able to visualize budgets that address climate needs.

National leaders will be looking for positive grand visions to pull their people out of pandemic- induced despair. A new American President might be eager to reassert a proactive international role for the US.

As for the legitimate urgency of climate action, the pandemic might actually have bought the world a little time. The extreme economic slowdown currently projected would mean lower emissions this year of CO2. The carbon clock might be slightly pushed back.

It might also turn out that the concerted international action that eventually succeeds in defeating the pandemic – and the widely respected leadership by the UN’s WHO – provides a model for global cooperation for taking the unprecedented steps necessary to defeat climate change. Governments and individuals may realize that indeed we can successfully take extensive multilateral action when a crisis calls for it.

We’re all living in unprecedented times, and nations and people are sailing through uncharted waters. While it’s by no means certain that the optimistic scenarios above can guarantee success, they’d seem to provide the greatest hope for it.

Nations are now facing two immense and urgent crises. One must and can be dealt with immediately. The second also requires extensive financial resources and exceptional political will, but needs time to produce them.

It is time to re-schedule COP26 to 2021.

Felix Dodds has been a policy consultant to United Nations agencies, national governments and stakeholders for 30 years. He was Chair of the UN Conference on Sustainable Societies Responsible Citizens (2011). He was the co-director of the Water and Climate Coalition at the UNFCCC (2007 to 2012) and Co-director of the University of North Carolina’s Nexus Conferences on Climate-Water-Energy-Food (2014 and 2018).

He is the author or editor of 20 books on the environment and intergovernmental negotiations. In 2019 he was a candidate for Executive Director the United Nations Environment Programme.

Michael Strauss is Executive Director of Earth Media, a political and media consultancy that advises UN agencies, NGOs and governments on international environmental, development, and social issues. He served as the UN’s Media Coordinator for NGOs, Trade Unions, and Business organizations at the UN Summits on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg (2002) and Rio de Janeiro (2012).

He is co-author of ‘Only One Earth: The Long Road via Rio to Sustainable Development’ (Earthscan, Taylor & Francis), with Felix Dodds and Maurice F. Strong.

By Felix Dodds
NEW YORK, Jul 29 2019 (IPS)

As some of you will know I have a new book out Stakeholder Democracy: Represented Democracy in a Time of Fear.  (other contributors to the book were:  Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, Carolina Duque Chopitea, Minu Hemmati, Susanne Salz, Bernd Lakemeier, Laura Schmitz, and Jana Borkenhagen). 

The book’s theory of change is very simple involving stakeholders in the decision making makes better-informed decisions and that those decisions are more likely to be implemented with those stakeholder’s support either singularly or in partnership.

The book places Stakeholder Democracy within the spectrum of Representative to Participatory Democracy.

It argues that we need to strengthen represented democracy in a time of fear through engaging stakeholders. It recognizes that in many places politicians are no longer believed but they need to make difficult decisions. To help them do this engaging with the support of stakeholders can help them to have the political courage to address climate change or the wave of new technologies coming or migration or the many other difficult issues we will be facing in the next ten years up to 2030.

Two discourses

Since around 1992 we have had two different political discourses in play that of stakeholders and that of civil society.

Under the leadership of Maurice Strong, Chip Lindner, and Nitin Desai the Earth Summit moved away from the old NGO discourse. This was that in the UN everyone who wasn’t a government or an intergovernmental organization was an NGO as far as the UN was concerned.

The Earth Summit changed that. Agenda 21 recognized 9 stakeholder groups in society who should be involved in policy development and in helping to deliver Agenda 21 and the Rio Conventions. These were:

1. Women
2. Children and Youth
3. Indigenous Peoples
4. Non-Governmental Organizations
5. Local Authorities
6. Workers and Trade Unions
7. Business and Industry
8. Scientific and Technological Community
9. Farmers

By the way, these were enlarged in the development of the 2030 Agenda to include others such as older people and the disabled.

At the same time in the  World Social Summit (1995), the Financing for Development space (2002) and those around the Bretton Woods Institutions a different political discourse evolved that of civil society.

This discourse recognized only two different groups than government and intergovernmental bodies these two were industry and civil society. What did this mean?

Civil Society concept increases space for industry

We often hear in the civil society discourse of the increased space that industry has.

Well, the conceptual framework for civil society by its nature increases the space of industry from one of nine to one to two.

So let’s be clear the advocates for this by their own actions are giving up massive space for industry and reducing space for other stakeholders.

It also allows governments and intergovernmental organizations to just group anyone who isn’t industry into a catch-all group.

Who is Civil Society?

Well, there are many definitions out there and the book looks at some of them. But what it tends to be is a space dominated by NGOs…it does subjugate women, youth, community groups etc into this one space no longer having their individual and unique voices.

By doing this it dilutes the gender perspective – it reduces the voice of the next generation.

Civil Society also excludes a number of key stakeholders that includes academics and scientists, Indigenous Peoples – they are a “Peoples” and should, of course, have not to be subjugated to other views.

It excludes local and subnational government who is seen as a level of government but whose voices freedom found with their national government.

The book goes into examples where this course has resulted in the wrong people being at the table.

The Stakeholder discourse, on the other hand, requires an ongoing stakeholder mapping process to ensure the right people are at the table.

It gives them individual space to articulate for a gender perspective or youth a next-generation perspective. It enables new relevant stakeholders that have emerged over the last 25 years to be recognized and given space such as older people or people with disabilities.

Civil Society discourse is a lazy discourse

What amazes me is how groups that do not benefit from the civil society discourse seem to accept it without question.

I can only think it is because its easier than to argue for the individual voice of relevant stakeholders.

For governments and intergovernmental organizations, it makes their life much easier.

They don’t have to show what they are doing for engaging each of the stakeholders they leave it to a broad engagement with this catch-all group of civil society.

What it has done in many UN bodies that have adopted this reduces the staff support for stakeholders and increase it for industry – a good example of this is UNEP.

After all, now intergovernmental bodies would only be servicing two groups… resulting in the need for only a form of parity between civil society support and industry. Previously there needed to be evidence of support for women, youth, Indigenous Peoples etc.

You can hear from some of those lazy people the comments like…

“ahh how do you decide which stakeholder group you should be a member of”
”
They go on to say “what if you are a woman and a young person and work for an NGO.

Well, the engagement isn’t and shouldn’t be based on the individual it’s based on the organization in all cases. To be clear it should be based on what the organization’s policy priorities are. If the organization is focused on youth policies then it should engage with the youth caucus, if its work is gender then it should engage with the women’s stakeholder group and if it’s a mixture well work in a number of different stakeholder groups.

Who benefits from the Civil Society discourse?

I always like to look at who benefits to see if that has a bearing.

It’s clear that there is a number that benefit.

Governments and Intergovernmental organizations benefit as they don’t have to address the different voices and leave that coordination to whoever is organizing the civil society group.

Industry benefits as they gain a huge additional space vacated by key stakeholders one of 2 is so much better than one of 9 or more for them.

Also, large well organized northern-based NGOs benefit as they can assert a larger influence on one space than many.

So if you are happy with giving more space to industry, reducing space for women and youth and other key stakeholders, not recognizing Indigenous Peoples right for their own space, do not want academics and scientists to be able to represent their research then do continue to use the civil society concept but understand what you are doing.

You are actively taking part in reducing space for all other stakeholders.

Excerpt:

By Felix Dodds and Minu Hemmati
Jan 31 2018 (IPS)

Mark Ritchie, former Minnesota Secretary of State and former president of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, sent Felix an email about a very interesting interview with Kevin Watkins, the CEO of Save the Children Fund (UK). The interview and commentary was by Russell Hargrave in devex: “Save the Children CEO on a new era of competition for aid”.

Kevin Watkins the CEO of Save the Children Fund (UK)

We hadn’t picked up that Kevin had left ODI and gone to Save in September 2016. A little background on Save and the SDGs: Save the Children was the last development oriented organisation to campaign against the SDGs, and instead kept lobbying for an MDG+ agenda. This continued up to the G7 meeting in 2014. There was also the controversy and the rebellion of the Save staff (including others) over a ‘Global legacy award’ given to Tony Blair in March 2015. All this took place under the previous management of Save UK. Also, there are always questions concerning which private sector NGOs partner with. It was worrying that Save had partnered with ExxonMobil which then was campaigning against and placing misinformation about climate change. Did that impact Saves policy on climate change or could it perhaps do so in the future? Also, if children are at the forefront of the impacts of climate change is it a good policy to take money from a company that is working to slow down or stop action on climate change? It would be a little like an organization that is addressing cancer and at the same time is taking money from a tobacco company.

The need for some form of transparency around private sector investments would be addressed if the push for all companies listed on the Stock Exchanges having to produce their Environment, Social and Governance Reports as a listings requirement similar to producing their economic reports.

Kevin has done excellent work at Oxfam, ODI and as Director of the Human Development Office in UNDP. The Human Development Report, also among his responsibilities, is one of the very best UN reports produced each year.

While he was at UNDP he oversaw and was lead author of some of the most interesting Human Development Reports such as: “Beyond scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis” (2006); “Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world” (2007/2008); and “International cooperation at a crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world” (2005) which in its introduction said:

“This Report is about the scale of the challenge facing the world at the start of the 10-year countdown to 2015. Its focus is on what governments in rich countries can do to keep their side of the global partnership bargain. This does not imply that governments in developing countries have no responsibility. On the contrary, they have primary responsibility. No amount of international cooperation can compensate for the actions of governments that fail to prioritize human development, to respect human rights, to tackle inequality or to root out corruption. But without a renewed commitment to cooperation backed by practical action, the MDGs will be missed—and the Millennium Declaration will go down in history as just one more empty promise.” (UNDP, 2005)

The devex interview focuses on the increased momentum towards creating partnerships with the private sector. It’s clear that the delivery of the SDGs will need private sector financing and investment as the amounts that are being quoted to deliver the SDGs are in the region of $3-5 trillion a year which incidentally dwarfs ODA contributions by more than a factor of 10. The need for some form of transparency around private sector investments would be addressed if the push for all companies listed on the Stock Exchanges having to produce their Environment, Social and Governance Reports   as a listings requirement similar to producing their economic reports.  Something that has been called for by two UN Secretary General High-Level Panels (2011 and 2013).

Those of you who read this blog regularly will have noticed a repeatedly raised concern about the lack of accountability regarding multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) within the UN. At least that is the case for those that are registered in the UN database. Beyond that, there are serious questions about accountability in those partnerships that the UN is directly involved with. There is little or no Member State oversight and a lose set of rules. This is a high-risk situation that needs to be addressed. It could have a disastrous impact on the UN’s reputation if a partnership should go wrong.

There have been a number of criticisms levelled at different partnerships with different corporations that the UN has agreed to. If you are interested in this we recommend a very good paper by Barbara Adams and Sarah Dayringer on UN partnerships with the private sector.

There have been a number of papers that have been presented in preparation for the ECOSOC Partnership Forum events over the last three years which are worth reading. They address both MSPs and PPPs – which are unfortunately often confused and criticism (or enthusiasm) is aimed at both even when the main critical point is private sector engagement and in particular contracting to private sector entities (see endnote).

• Guidelines on a principle-based approach to the Cooperation between the United Nations and the business sector
• Independent paper on “Multi-stakeholder Partnerships: making them work for the Post-2015 Development Agenda“
• Independent paper on “Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for implementing the 2030 Agenda: Improving transparency and accountability
• Independent paper on “Multi-stakeholder Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda: Challenges and options for oversight at the United Nations”
• Partnerships for Sustainable Development Goals: A legacy review for realizing the 2030 Agenda

The Secretary General’s new report on the “Repositioning of the UN Development System” begins to address this.

The report makes the argument that partnerships need to scale up their approaches to partnership building at the system-wide level to help deliver the SDGs. The SG recognizes that the present approach is inefficient, opaque and unnecessarily risky, particularly as it relates to due diligence.

The report suggests that the Deputy Secretary General (DSG) should make partnerships a “top priority” proposing that the Resident Coordinator Offices in counties should be “one-stop-shops” for partnerships with a full range of stakeholders. This has some serious implications for the whole UN family as many UN Agencies and Programmes are doing their own things, all to different standards of accountability and due diligence procedures (if any), and in most cases without any Member State oversight.

The Report proposes to launch six partnership-related workstreams:

Coordinate a process within the UN Development Group to agree on a system-wide approach to partnership.

Strengthen system-wide integrity, due diligence and risk management.

The Global Compact has been asked to consider ways to improve governance at the global level, and its oversight and the impact of its Local Networks.

The UN Office for Partnerships will be firmly established as the UN’s global gateway for partnerships.

Further development of the partnership with the World Bank and other International Financial Institutions for a refreshed system-wide compact around high-impact actions. A new agreement with the WB will be finalized by mid-2018.

Invigorate support to South-South cooperation, particularly ahead of the high-level conference in March 2019. This could include organizational reforms.

We mention this because multi-stakeholder partnerships can help deliver the SDGs. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 was the first conference where the intergovernmental world recognised that multi-stakeholder partnerships (then called “type 2 agreements”) could help deliver global goals and targets (called “type 1 agreements”). Unfortunately, the outcome from WSSD was not at the level that was expected: it failed to add any more goals to the MDGs and only added one target on sanitation to the MDG targets.

We have been great supporters, practitioners, and coaches of multi-stakeholder processes and partnerships as an intrinsic element of the delivery mechanism for global agreements – mobilizing all sectors of societies for participatory, inclusive and effective consultation and implementation. But we have been very disappointed with their impact over the last 15 years. The lack of impact was partly because there was no investment into developing a system of accountability; neither were there any systems devised to support them and provide services for them. Also, without clear goals and targets and indicators it proved difficult to focus implementation around the outcome from WSSD. This is not the case with the SDGs, as all their elements are in place: goals, targets and indicators.

We have argued that we need a Charter for Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships which might go as far as to have MSPs audited against a set of principles. If such a Charter was created among the NGOs and they signed on to it as a commitment demonstrating how they will approach partnerships, there would be an opportunity to see whether a partnership was delivering, whether it was founded on a set of agreed and accepted core principles, and how these principles were being put into practice.

In the devex interview with Kevin, Save is clearly at the forefront of NGO partnerships development, and seem to be on par with other large development NGOs such as World Vision and Care. The idea of a Charter is being supported by CIVICUS Secretary General Danny Sriskandarajah and former CIVICUS and Greenpeace and now Amnesty International head Kumi Naidoo. In order to develop the Charter, these and other organizations’ experiences should be used  to help build an effective accountability framework for partnerships.

In the devex article there is also a very interesting section which deals with competition with the private sector for aid money. Save the Children turned over $539 million in 2016 (by way of comparison: UNEP’s turnover in the same year was $511 million). In the UK, because of the coalition governments during 2010-2015, the government is committed to 0.7% GNI annually for development aid. Hence no additional money is available for development work. This has resulted in more aid funds being spent through the private sector.  NGOs are now moving, in many cases, from grants to regular contracts to deliver services. As Watkins says in the devex interview:

“One of the things we have seen really over the last decade is the entry into the market for program delivery of some of the very big [private sector] players,” Watkins said. “They have obvious strengths, strengths that are associated with their scale, with their fiduciary capabilities and that sort of area.”

This brings into focus something that some people kept asking themselves during the SDG negotiations in 2014: Was Save the Children arguing for an MDG+ agenda because they believed it to be the right agenda, or were they lobbying for this solution simply to protect their funding?

Now, if Save the Children and other NGOs are moving on to engaging in more and more competitive tenders to deliver services, we have to as: what really distinguishes them from the private companies they are tending against? Are they still to be considered as non-governmental, or civil society organizations? At the UN, individual private sector companies and for-profit organisations are barred from accreditation. How are we – or the UN – going to handle NGOs signing commercial contracts on par with private companies, and on top of that also making money? And what happens when they also enter into contracts with lucrative partnerships? As more and more NGOs seem to look at creating social business or for-profit arms in order to address the growing challenges of resourcing, more and more hybrid organisations seem to emerge.

Such questions were also discussed at the recent CSO conference “Global Perspectives 2017: New Resources for New Programmes”). Much of the resourcing challenge is political as increasing numbers of governments restrict the abilities of NGOs, foundations and private philanthropists to work in countries other than their own – often under the heading of anti-corruption measures but actually motivated by the wish to clamp down on civic rights.

At said conference, there was much and creative discussion about new programming and resourcing strategies, including working more closely with and driven by volunteers and members, creating social enterprise, and working in partnerships with business and governments. Someone came up with the slogan “grants are for losers!” which was picked up repeatedly.

David Booth (ODI) explained that NGOs, in particular international civil society organizations, will have to become “more politically smart, adaptive and locally led” in order to contribute more effectively to bringing about sustainable development.

Obviously, this will need to include different, possibly more flexible, possibly more diverse strategies of resourcing. If it does, it may change the stakes of such organisations – i.e. their interests, needs, and influences in processes where they engage as stakeholders.

There is a “Civic Charter”, developed and launched by non-government organisations in 2016, setting out rights and responsibilities around basic freedoms, civic participation, and accountability. This is in part to counter said accusations that limit NGOs’ ability to move and speak freely.

An MSP Charter will help address some of the questions raised above regarding engaging in for-profit work like service delivery contracting, picking up consultancies, developing social enterprises, and generally entering into partnerships not only with business but with all sectors in societies.

Kevin argues in the devex article:

“We are not exempt from value for money considerations, just because we are an NGO … I don’t want to be part of a sector that hides behind empty rhetoric about our own NGO status. These are the basic functioning units of a business. Over the last few years we have put very significant investment into all that delivery infrastructure and procurement infrastructure.” He goes on to identify that what distinguishes NGOs from their corporate competitors, is the area of transparency and also that they have long-term relationships with partners in country. But is this enough? Can businesses not point to exactly the same?

It is high time we begin to discuss these complex issues as they all touch sensitive areas of NGO existence – not the least the issue of credibility. Perhaps a good beginning could be around the Charter for MSPs where Principles for Partnerships with the private sector is a minimum. NGOs who signed on to such a Charter could then make sure that they would reflect those principles in any relationships they would have with the private sector. It would not solve all the complex issues, but it would be a good beginning. Or are we moving closer to privatizing parts of the NGO community? Are grants really only for losers?

Endnote:

We have suggested to clearly differentiate between MSPs and PPPs using the following definitions:

Multi-stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) for sustainable development are specific commitments and contributions, undertaken together by various partners intended to support the implementation of transformation towards sustainable development and help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and other relevant sustainable development agreements.

Private Public Partnerships are principally contractual arrangements between single or several public agencies (federal, state or local) and single or several private sector entities. Through such arrangements, the skills and assets of each sector (public and private) are shared, in delivering a service or facility for the use of the general public. Other stakeholders might be sub-contractors in a PPP.

(see Hemmati, M & Dodds, F. 2017.  Principles an Practices of Multi-stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development – Guidance and Oversight from UN Decisions, prepared for a workshop of the Friends for Governance for Sustainable Development, New York.

The statements and views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IPS.

Excerpt:

Cristina Gallach (centre), Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, poses for a group photo with, from left to right: Diane Nelson, Lynda Carter, Gal Gadot and Patty Jenkins. Credit: UN Photo/Kim Haughton

By Felix Dodds
NEW YORK, Aug 15 2017 (IPS)

I realize it’s a lot easier saying this now after the film of the same name has come out and has taken over $400 million in US box office receipts. It is at present taken the 8th most revenue for a super hero comic book ever.

But it does begin to look as though UNICEF and DPI – bowing to the significant number of staff whose unprecedented, outraged opposition prompted their reversal – made a mistake. A huge, global mistake.

Here’s the history –

UNICEF announced the comic book heroine Wonder Woman as a UN Ambassador last year on UN Day, the 21st of October. Her role was meant to empower young girls by seeing her as an example the original UN Press Release said:

“the iconic superhero, has been named an Honorary Ambassador for the Empowerment of Women and Girls by the United Nations and will be tasked with raising awareness about Goal 5 of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls by 2030.”

And 2016 was a very important year for Wonder Woman it’s the 75th anniversary of her first appearance as a superhero.

The reaction on her becoming an Ambassador wasn’t very positive in UN circles and women’s organizations. There was an online petition against the decision which over 45,000 people signed and key UN staff and women’s groups were vocal about their opposition to the decision.   A group of staffers attending the launch meeting stood and pointedly turned their backs as the event started.

Their criticisms ranged from Wonder Women’s role as a figure promoting violence, as a sexual stereotype, and as a representative of US jingoism (her red, white and blue uniform indeed reflected American patriotism of the WWII era during which she was produced).

“The message to girls is that you are expected to meet a male standard in which your significance is reduced to your role as a sexual object,” said Anne Marie Goetz, a professor of global affairs at New York University and a former adviser on peace and security issues to the United Nations agency, U.N. Women.

It was a rather extraordinary rebellion. But it was also understandable. The fictional character’s ‘appointment’ had been announced just after the real-world selection of António Guterres as UN Secretary General, contrary to months of wide expectation was that the next SG would be a woman.

But historically and on substance, the reaction was in some ways surprising. The 1970s feminists including Gloria Steinem saw Wonder Woman as an inspiration. In fact, the first issue of the feminist magazine Ms. had Wonder Woman on its front cover.

Perhaps those criticizing actually hadn’t done a due diligence on who Wonder Woman was. Clearly none of them were comic fans.

William Marston who invented the Wonder Woman character, was a friend and great admirer of Margaret Sanger, the co-founder of Planned Parenthood. His description of the character was anything but stereotypical or belittling. In 1947 Marsten said:

‘You know, you need a female superhero because she will embody the nurturing values of womanhood. She will be about peace not war. The only hope for civilization is the greater freedom, development and equality of women in all fields of human activity. Frankly, Wonder Woman is psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world.”

So now we come to the film itself. First it was one of the best films of 2017 so far. It was directed by a great director Patricia Lea Jenkins whose previous 2003 crime drama film Monster about serial killer Aileen Wuornos, a former prostitute who was executed in Florida in 2002 for killing six men in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Because of Wonder Woman success, Jenkins now holds the highest take for a film directed by a woman. It has become the highest-grossing movie directed by a woman, surpassing previous record holder Mamma Mia.

She achieved that as a director with a remarkable grasp of characterization and emotional depth. The film doesn’t present Wonder Woman as a sex symbol, but as friendly and very intelligent young woman. The choice of Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman was masterful. As an actor, she comes over as a real and accessible individual. While there has been some criticism of her being Israeli, I have to assume that no UN representative would support discrimination based on nationality or religion.

Besides, I thought it neatly complemented the fact that the lead individual who advanced the idea of Wonder Woman in the UN as a UN Ambassador was Mayer Naser – a Palestinian.

Here are some of the reviews:

“Wonder Woman embraces issues of female power and the need to turn from hate to love, war to peace in a mainstream delivery system. And the female lead is not solely a mother, sister, girlfriend or hooker, however gold her heart: wonder of wonders!”  Thelma Adams New York Observer

“Wonder Woman” is a tale of transmission, of wisdom passed down from generation to generation, from woman to woman, and from individual women to society at large—for those in society at large who are able to hear and heed it. It’s a visual tale of oral history, an allegory that cuts both ways: even as the segregation of women on Themyscira sends Diana into the world with a narrowed view of humankind, male-dominated human society at large, which keeps women largely out of power and cultural authority, keeps itself stultified, blinded, ignorant, oppressive, violent, warmongering. This, too, is part of the film’s exemplary present-day framework, both dramatic and ideological. Diana isn’t a warrior to end all wars, she’s a warrior to warn against wars—and against the parochial, self-enclosed island doctrines which are employed to justify them. In her work at the Louvre, she cultivates not just her own garden but a garden for humanity at large.” Richard Brody The New Yorker

“Yes, she is sort of naked a lot of the time, but this isn’t objectification so much as a cultural reset: having thighs, actual thighs you can kick things with, not thighs that look like arms, is a feminist act. The whole Diana myth, women safeguarding the world from male violence not with nurture but with better violence, is a feminist act. Casting Robin Wright as Wonder Woman’s aunt, re-imagining the battle-axe as a battler, with an axe, is a feminist act. A female German chemist trying to destroy humans (in the shape of Dr Poison, a proto-Mengele before Nazism existed) might be the most feminist act of all.

Women are repeatedly erased from the history of classical music, art and medicine. It takes a radical mind to pick up that being erased from the history of evil is not great either. Wonder Woman’s casual rebuttal of a sexual advance, her dress-up montage (“it’s itchy”, “I can’t fight in this”, “it’s choking me”) are also feminist acts. Wonder Woman is a bit like a BuzzFeed list: 23 Stupid Sexist Tropes in Cinema and How to Rectify Them. I mean that as a compliment.” Zoe Williams Guardian

As I publish this article Wonder Woman is $3.5 million short of overtaking the top grossing Spiderman movies. She may very well do that this weekend. She is also only $8 million short of overtaking the top Captain America movie and $9 million short of overtaking the top Iron Man movie. That will bring her to the 5th biggest domestic taking for a comic book adaptation with only Batman ahead of her as a movie about a single superhero – the other slots are Avengers movies.

Finally let’s go back to the original UN Press Release and reflect on it. It said:

“Wonder Woman’s strength and fight for justice and peace will help to focus the campaign’s attention in five key areas:

• Speaking out against discrimination and limitations on women and girls;
• Joining forces with others against gender-based violence and abuse;
• Supporting full and effective participation and equal opportunity for women and girls in leadership in all spheres of life – including the workplace;
• Ensuring all women and girls have access to quality learning, and:
• Sharing examples of real life women and girls who are making a difference every day.”

All of the above were in one way or another reflected in the film and add to that the grace that Gal Gadot brought as Wonder Woman then perhaps the time is right for Wonder Woman to become again a UN Ambassador.

Excerpt:

A photocomposition of European cities in a Habitat III exposition in Quito. Credit: Emilio Godoy/IPS

By Felix Dodds
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 4 2017 (IPS)

At the beginning of August, the High Level Independent Panel to Assess and Enhance Effectiveness of UN-Habitat came out with its report. Before commenting on the Panel Report I want to put up front that I know that a lot of the staff in UN Habitat do excellent work and its same they weren’t given a proper role in Habitat III.

It should be remembered that UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres appointed the high-level panel in April this year. The Panel had a very short time to produce its report. I would argue far far too short a time.  To enable a Panel to get on top of options and proposals and hear viewpoints on initial drafts Panels should not be expected to report in less than two years. So, I find myself reading a report that I already have concerns about in the context of the ability of those on the Panel to really get beyond a literature search and a few outside papers and very little outside reflection or input.

Universal body: Let’s turn to the recommendations. The first one I would highlight is making UN Habitat a universal body. No! No! No!

So why not? UNEP was made a universal body out of Rio+20. It has had only 2 meetings as a universal body and there are big questions whether the new body is better than the old UNEP Governing Council. What I mean is it is too early to say if going to the additional bureaucracy and finance needed for a universal body makes the body more effective or less. It’s not as if countries are fighting over trying to become a member of the governing body of UN Habitat. Ensuring that any governing body of UN Habitat schedule overlaps with the UN Environment Assembly is a good idea and one that has been advocated in the 1990s for the functioning commissions of EcoSoc. I have advocated that before every High Level Political Forum (HLPF) there should be a two-day local SDG conference. This should be organized by the stakeholders with UN Habitat and other UN bodies in support NOT leading. The idea of having an Assembly or for that matter a Forum around the UNGA is a none starter. Member states in New York are preparing prior to the Heads of State session for their Heads of State, Ministers and events the idea that another set of activities would come into a space that is already highly stressed shows a lack of understanding of intergovernmental processes.

Stakeholders and Habitat:  Habitat II in 1996 in the original text had given places on the Commission on Human Settlement to industry, women, NGOs and local government. Member States took that out either in New York or Nairobi I can’t remember. That was a good suggestion.

Committee of Stakeholders: This made me laugh. The people on the Panel clearly don’t understand the term stakeholder. They interchange stakeholders with civil society which are completely different terms and refer to different groups so for example academics, Indigenous Peoples, the local government and the private sector are not members of civil society. They then go on to suggest that the Committee of Stakeholders will include ten civil society representatives, five academics and five from the private sector. It’s embarrassing. I could go into this at length but just in terms of the SDG process through the HLPF private sector are 1 of 10 or more stakeholder groups in this process they become 1 in 4. I didn’t see much evidence that the private sector was at the door clamoring to get involved with the Habitat III process. As far as the 5 places for academics REALLY!!!!! Are they more important to pick out than a few other stakeholders that are central to delivering the SDGs such as women, youth, the NGOs who are actually active on human settlement issues?

Committee on Local Government:  I understand why this is a good idea for local and sub national government. I do believe they need a different relationship with UN Habitat than other stakeholders and this should be looked at. I’m not sure this doesn’t ghettoize them.

Private Sector: Is the most central ask of the Panel for ‘UN Habitat explore ways to encourage private sector actors to look at the unintended negative impacts of their investments and to find ways to mitigate them?’ . The Panel goes on to say ‘that UN-Habitat develop a strategy for cooperation with multilateral banks, financial institutions, and private sources of finance in order to increase the available resources for inclusive and sustainable urbanization.’ What it should focus on is supporting the development of principles for PPPs or whether PPPs are the right approach for infrastructure. As it is in many cases sub national governments who are doing PPPs – UN Habitat could play a role in the UN family to collect best practice to support the UN developing core PPP principles and offer capacity building with the sub-national and local government bodies to help sub national governments to address where PPPs or Public-Public-Public Partnerships are the better way forward.

UN Urban: This is a good idea PROVIDED UN Habitat does not chair it. I say that because both for Habitat II and Habitat III the Executive Directors kept out the rest of the UN Family as much as they could. Either intentionally – because they were worried about competition or incompetence where they didn’t engage the family members early enough to enable them to bring their expertise to the table. UN Water has elections for the head of it – it did at one time rotate the chair. Both of these ideas would be work considering. UN Habitat should act as the Vice Chair. The secretariat for UN Urban should be seconded people from different agencies and programmes.  As with UN Water stakeholders should be enabled to join as non-voting members.

Funding: It has been estimated that we need $5-7 trillion a year to implement the SDGs. If NUA had actually been about the local implementation of the SDGS as opposed to a forgotten agreement languishing on people’s hard drives then you could work out the funding needed at the local level for the over 60% of the targets that need a local implementation. A Panel that had two years to do its work could have commissioned such a paper. This would have been the basis for then a conversation with Member States and other funders about what role UN Habitat might play.

The reason that UN Habitat is not funded adequately is that Member States DO NOT have confidence in the leadership of the body. Setting up new funds without new leadership and the beginning of a proven record is I think a waste of time.

Finally – the bits of the NUA which will survive will be those that support the implementation of the SDGs, the Paris Climate Agreement and the AAAA.

What this report doesn’t do is look at other options (a) merging with UNEP (b) going back into UNDP. It also doesn’t ask Member States and stakeholders what services they need from UN Habitat at the country level. This could have been undertaken over a two-year period but not in a less than five month period. How it fits into the Secretary Generals Re-positioning the UN Development System to Deliver on the 2030 Agenda is unclear. It probably means it will be seen as a feeding into the second report due out in December.

For UN Habitat to be a success it needs to focus on the SDG agenda it needs to make friends again with the UN family as a whole and not try and barriers around the localization of the SDGs and say MINE. So much of the UN family is working at the country level on similar parts of the agenda and should be doing this in cooperation with UN Habitat. It will be up to the next Executive Director of UN Habitat to do much of this. If they don’t, then they may be the last Executive Director of UN Habitat.

The statements and views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of IPS.

Excerpt:

The UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals are projected onto UN headquarters. UN Photo/Cia Pak

By Felix Dodds
UNITED NATIONS, May 30 2017 (IPS)

Over the past five years, I have written with a number of co-authors the history of the sustainable development movement at the global level prior to the first UN Conference on Human Environment held in 1972 through the 1992 Earth Summit and Rio+20 to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Climate Agreement. I like to think of these books as the ‘Vienna Café Trilogy’ after the café in the basement of the United Nations headquarters in New York, where many deals are done over coffee. Also, with deference to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy in Five Parts, this trilogy may also have future books.

In light of the anniversaries and the political landscape in which we currently find ourselves, I thought it would a good time to review where we are and the state of the discourse on sustainable development.

Writing these books did give me a broader perspective than that of living in the moment. The journey towards a planet which can sustain our consumption and production patterns has been a long one. At each advance, we have faced the reality that policy development in any particular area is impacted by global reality in other areas. After the first UN Conference on Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, the world had to deal with the impacts of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. This saw oil prices rise from US$3 per barrel to US$12 globally, rising even higher in the United States. This energy crisis due to the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries oil embargo. This negatively impacted on the implementation of the Stockholm agreements.

“The roadmap that started in Stockholm, continued in Rio and Johannesburg and in Rio-20 must now become a reality. Our essential unity as peoples of the Earth must transcend the differences and difficulties which still divide us. You are called upon to rise to your historic responsibility as custodians of the planet in taking the decisions in the next year that will unite rich and poor, North, South, East and West, in a new global partnership to ensure our common future I ask you to work together to make it such for your time has come to make those changes.” - Maurice Strong in 2014
The 1992 Earth Summit, birthed Agenda 21 – a blueprint to take us through to the twenty-first century as well as securing the conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity and the Rio Declaration. The Declaration, consisted of a set of 27 principles to guide countries included the principle of ‘the polluter pays,’ which recently was effective in holding British Petroleum (BP) accountable in the Deep Horizon disaster and serves as a foundational principle of the climate change Green Fund.  These agreements also had a backdrop, this being the First Gulf War and the increase again in oil prices as well as the stabilization of Eastern Europe after the breakup of the former Soviet bloc.

Promises to fund the implementation of the Summit agreements were estimated at $625 billion a year, which included a transfer of $125 billion from developed to developing countries, failed to emerge. In fact, aid flows declined in the 1990s, which I view as the ‘lost decade’ in retrospect. The 1990s was a time when the world could have truly laid the foundations for a more fair, equitable and sustainable world than we know today.

The 2012 Rio+20 conference, presented as a failure by much of the media, was in fact vital in setting up what would be the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), finally agreed upon in September 2015. Without Rio+20, I am almost certain the agreement would have been closer to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) than what was agreed. The SDGs are different from the MDGs in a number of ways. First, they are universal and apply to all countries, while the MDGs applied to only developing countries. Second, they address the root causes of the problems we face as opposed to just addressing their symptoms. Third, they deal not just with sectors themselves, but also the interlinkages between sectors. For instance, you cannot effectively deal with water issues without recognizing that they are also relevant to issues involving food, energy, health, poverty, gender, biodiversity and climate. Finally, the MDGs address development, while the SDGs address sustainable development.

The SDGs, along with the Paris Agreement in December 2015, provide a very clear blueprint for sustainable development; but, as always, the real world has its own ideas on the implementation of these agreements.

The Brexit decision last year in the United Kingdom and the election of President Trump in the United States are already having an impact. There is no question that the implementation of policies on climate change have slowed in the United Kingdom, while almost stopping altogether in the United States. The difference between now and previous times is that in the area of energy the developments since the financial crisis of 2008 have advanced renewable energy investment. According to the HSBC review of ‘How Green were the Recovery Packages’ had seen large amounts of government funding going to green technology. Roughly 20% of the recovery package in the United States went to green technologies, with similar percentages in France and Germany. In China, this percentage was higher at 37%, and particularly high in South Korea at 79%. This investment means, in many places, renewable energy is now competitive with the fossil fuel industry and is exceeding the fossil fuel industry in job creation.

Around all of the SDGs, there has been an explosion of partnerships (nearly 3000) between governments, the UN, and stakeholders working together to create and deliver results on the ground. Many foundations have reorganized their funding around the SDGs. The SDG Funders Platform provides examples of this reorganization, and today national platforms of foundations exist in places such as Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, the United States, and the Arab Region. Furthermore, the UN Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development have developed the SDG Compass to help companies reorganize and report on their implementation around the SDGs.

While the political climate in two key countries – the United Kingdom and the United States –may have shifted, there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that this shift will be a blip in the implementation of the 2015 SDGs and Paris Climate Agreement. Unlike previous global agreements, industry and the rest of society are integrating these commitments into their work. Leaders in the financial sector such as AVIVA are calling for requiring companies to produce environment, social and governance reports in addition to the traditional financial reports before being listed on the stock exchange. Why are they doing this? Because many of the SDGs are reflected in the top ten global risks in the World Economic Forum’s Annual Risk Report. They represent market failures, and the financial sector must be able to factor them into their investment decisions.

With all of this being said, obviously not everything is going well and there will certainly be countless challenges ahead. Nearly ten years since the financial crisis of 2008, many of the developed world’s economies are still experiencing sluggish growth. History has shown that there are financial crises of different varieties every ten years or so. The issue of banks being ‘too big to fail’ has gotten worse rather than better since 2008, and the Trump Administration in the United States may further exacerbate this issue by eliminating some of the regulations put in place through Dodd-Frank. The next financial crisis is just over the horizon, and I am worry about the resiliency of our political system and its ability to address it. How many of the people who caused the last crisis were ever prosecuted?

We are also in a period of massive change, with emerging technologies that will be greener and more accessible than ever before. Although, this will bring its own problems and governments will need to address them as they develop. The latest technologies, such as driverless cars, advancements in nanotechnology, 3-D printing, and more, will prove to be transformational for our society. So far, governments are not preparing their populations for the impact that these new technologies will have on employment and increasing inequality. These are real changes that, without preparation and government planning, will fuel people’s insecurity and their retreat from globalization as they assume their jobs will be more secure in a world built around higher walls…the higher the better.

In the same way that banks succeeded at privatizing the profits and socializing the losses as they led the global economy to the brink of collapse, my worry going forward is this: are we allowing the same to happen to the environment? Humanity has taken a huge leap over recent decades that has made us more interconnected than ever before – we need to behave as a global civilization as to not face catastrophic consequences.

The implementation of the SDGs and the Climate Agreement are the world’s best and perhaps last hope for creating a just, equitable and sustainable world.

Excerpt:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon celebrating the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe.

By Felix Dodds
UNITED NATIONS, Aug 31 2016 (IPS)

It’s been almost one year since heads of state and government adopted ‘Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ – the ambitious agenda which contains 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs) and 169 targets during a special session of the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015.

In fact, 2015 was one of the most important years for multilateral agreements. Not only did the governments sign up to SDGs, they also reached the Paris Climate Agreement and the Addis Ababa Action Agenda as the framework for funding the two policy agendas.

The SDGs were the culmination of four years of negotiations. Starting in July 2011, with the initial proposal by Paula Caballero from the government of Colombia, these negotiations became the most participatory process in UN history.

The vision reflected in the Heads of State Declaration expressed the aspirations of the agenda:

“We envisage a world in which every country enjoys sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all. A world in which consumption and production patterns and use of all natural resources – from air to land, from rivers, lakes and aquifers to oceans and seas – are sustainable. One in which democracy, good governance and the rule of law as well as an enabling environment at national and international levels, are essential for sustainable development, including sustained and inclusive economic growth, social development, environmental protection and the eradication of poverty and hunger.”

However on major criticism levelled at the SDGs and their targets is that they are far too numerous. The reality is that the world of 2015 faced major crises in so many areas that it is difficult to imagine what could have been excluded. Those challenges were also identified to include:

“Global health threats, more frequent and intense natural disasters, spiraling conflict, violent extremism, terrorism and related humanitarian crises and forced displacement of people threaten to reverse much of the development progress made in recent decades. Natural resource depletion and adverse impacts of environmental degradation, including desertification, drought, land degradation, freshwater scarcity and loss of biodiversity, add to and exacerbate the list of challenges which humanity faces. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and its adverse impacts undermine the ability of all countries to achieve sustainable development.”

Compared to Agenda 21 the outcome from the 1992 Earth Summit, the new SDGs include a firm commitment to gender equity as a goal and targets that address the interlinkages between goals. They add energy, which was not an Agenda 21 chapter, and they focus on clean energy as the way forward. Agenda 21 did not deal with the issue of ‘good jobs and economic growth’ (SDG 8) and ‘resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation’ (SDG 9) nor Goal 10 on ‘inequality’.

The Sustainable Development Solutions Network estimate that it will cost $2-3 trillion a year to deliver the SDGs. In 1992 it was estimated that Agenda 21 would cost $625 billion a year. Decades of inaction explain why the cost has increased so much.

The Addis agreement recognised that the private sector will play a significant role in helping to fund the SDG implementation. One of the criticisms of this is that there wasn’t a counter balance with more oversight of industry.

In part to address this and to be launched on September 21^st the President of the UNGA Mogens Lykketoft of Denmark commissioned an expert report that identifies policy strategies designed to shift the flow of capital away from the unsustainable and toward areas of investment that can advance local, national and global efforts to achieve the SDGs, including the climate goal.

The report also addresses the question of how to mobilise financial, goods and services markets to support the SDGs and incorporate environmental, social and governance principles more systematically in to market activities. The expert report is written by Brookings with several informal feedback rounds by experts from within and outside the UN system.

It is vital to remember that the SDGs are a soft law agreement, meaning that governments are not legally required to deliver on the commitments.

One of the promising additions to the monitoring process has been the recognition that parliaments can play a monitoring role on their executives in fulfilling their commitments.

This could be through the use of parliamentary committees and perhaps an annual debate in countries’ parliaments on how national implementation is progressing.

One of the great outcomes from the implementation of Agenda 21 was that within ten years over 6000 local agenda 21s had been produced with local and sub-national government playing the facilitation role. This approach should be replicated as local and sub-national governments can develop local strategies to implement the SDGs.

The starting date for the SDGs was 1 January 2016 and even then the indicators for the targets had yet to be agreed and in some cases are still being negotiated. It is far too early to say how much of this agenda is being implemented. It will take until 2018 for official development assistance (ODA) to start to have an impact and so the real opportunity to take stock will be at the 2019 heads of state High Level Political Forum (HLPF).

July’s HLPF saw 22 countries presenting their national reports and a few of the countries – Colombia and Germany – had also started to develop their national strategies. All this should accelerate in the coming years and enable countries working with their stakeholders to create one strategy for this agenda and thus enable much more effective reporting.

Steering the course of global change to a just and sustainable future requires a concerted effort across all sectors. By providing a unifying agenda amidst enormous global diversity, the SDGs are providing the basis for potentially mounting a concerted movement for positive change. To achieve that outcome, the way in which major obstacles such as financing and accountability are overcome will make the difference in securing transformational change.

Excerpt: