An indigenous protestor demonstrates outside Brazil’s Ministry of Justice in June, following the disappearance of Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira in the Amazon. Their murders drew global attention to the dangers environmental defenders face in the region (Image: Antonio Molina / Foto Arena / Alamy)

By Fermín Koop
BUENOS AIRES, Oct 7 2022 (IPS)

Since November 2020, the threats, intimidation and pressure I have experienced due to my work in defence of human rights and nature are similar to those suffered by dozens of leaders living in the region. I have lived through the assassinations of three friends and environmental leaders.”

Óscar Sampayo has actively opposed oil and mining developments in the Magdalena Medio region of Colombia, documenting their impact on the local community and environment. He has been threatened on several occasions by paramilitary groups involved in drug trafficking, such as the Águilas Negras, or Black Eagles.

After Brazil, Colombia is the country with the second highest number of murders of environmental leaders in the last decade, according to the latest report by British human rights NGO Global Witness. Since 2012, a total of 1,733 activists have been killed worldwide, with 68% of cases occurring in Latin America.

The figures underestimate the true scale of the violence, the authors of the “Decade of Defiance” report add. Many cases go unreported as they occur in conflict zones or in places where there are restrictions on press freedom and civil society, and inadequate independent monitoring of attacks.

In addition, few perpetrators of killings are brought to justice because governments fail to adequately investigate the crimes. Authorities, the report says, either ignore or actively obstruct investigations into killings, often “due to the collusion between corporate and state interests”.

“All over the world, Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders risk their lives for the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss. Activists and communities play a crucial role as a first line of defence against ecological collapse,” said Mike Davis, Global Witness’ CEO.

A decade of killings

Since Global Witness began reporting on environmental defenders ten years ago, Brazil has had the highest number of killings. Around a third of the 342 activists killed in the country since 2012 were indigenous or Afro-descendant, and more than 85% of the killings took place in the Brazilian Amazon.

Source: Global Witness

The Amazon has become the main arena for violence and impunity against defenders, the report’s authors say. Since President Jair Bolsonaro came to power in 2018, deforestation and illegal mining have been encouraged, while the budgets of forest protection agencies have been cut.

Earlier this year, the murders of British journalist Dom Phillips and a local indigenous expert, Bruno Pereira, drew global attention to conditions in parts of the Amazon. Phillips and Pereira had travelled to the Javari Valley, an area known to be a hotbed of illegal activities.

“For protesting against these environmental crimes and harms to our health, we have been subjected to death threats, legal harassment and smear campaigns,” says Eliete Paraguassu, a Quilombola woman from the state of Bahia. “We will continue to fight the systematic environmental racism enacted toward Quilombos and the indigenous communities of Brazil.”

“All over the world, Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders risk their lives for the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss. Activists and communities play a crucial role as a first line of defence against ecological collapse”

Mike Davis, Global Witness’ CEO

In Colombia, the signing of the peace agreement with armed groups is now more than five years old, but its implementation has not been adequate, Global Witness states. This has maintained land disputes and violence towards the most vulnerable groups, such as small- and medium-scale farmers and indigenous peoples.

Such was the case of Sandra Liliana Peña, a leader of an indigenous community in the department of Cauca, one of the bloodiest areas of the country. She had spoken out against the growth of illegal crops and subsequently suffered threats. In 2021, she was shot dead by four armed men.

Mexico has also become one of the most dangerous countries for environmental defenders, with 154 murders recorded in the last decade, most of which took place between 2017 and 2021. Forced disappearances are now commonplace, carried out by organised criminal groups and corrupt government officials, the report reads.

Indigenous territories in Mexico are said to be particularly vulnerable to large-scale extractive projects led by national and foreign companies, and supported by the government. Concerns have been expressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over the lack of consultation with communities, and over attacks on those who oppose such projects.

Global Witness highlights a case from September 2021, when authorities discovered six sets of human remains near community land belonging to Yaqui peoples, in the south of the state of Sonora. The remains were thought to belong to some of a group of ten men who had disappeared the previous July. After multiple disappearances, the community targeted companies interested in Yaqui land. While officials blamed drug cartels, some community members reportedly suspect government and corporate involvement.

The way forward

Global Witness declares that the situation for environmental defenders around the world has worsened rather than improved in recent years. The growing climate and biodiversity crises, as well as the expansion of authoritarian governments, have given rise to an increase in killings since 2018.

In 2021, the year analysed by the recent report, 200 environmental defenders were killed – or four per week. Mexico was the country with the highest number of murders (54), followed by Colombia (33) and Brazil (26). Nearly 80% of the killings in Brazil, Peru and Venezuela were in the Amazon.

Despite the grim statistics and the increase in the number of deaths in recent years, researchers highlight some progress. In Honduras, a former energy executive was sentenced in June this year to 22 years in prison for ordering and planning the murder of activist Berta Cáceres in 2016.

Also highlighted as cause for encouragement is the Escazú Agreement, which entered into force in 2021. It is the first treaty on environment and human rights for Latin America and has among its objectives to prevent and investigate attacks on environmental defenders. Twelve Latin American countries have now ratified the agreement, including Mexico, though others such as Colombia and Brazil have yet to do so.

Global Witness calls on governments to ensure the safety of environmental defenders by creating new laws where they do not exist and enforcing existing ones. At the same time, companies must identify and mitigate any harm from their operations on defenders and ensure corporate accountability at all levels of action.

“Each and every death of a defender is a sign that our economic system is broken,” Global Witness affirms. “Fuelled by the pursuit of profit and power, there is a war over nature and the frontlines are the Earth’s remaining biodiverse regions.”

This article was originally published by China Dialogue

Construction of wind turbines near Tarariras, in Uruguay's Colonia department. Nearly all of the nation's electricity comes from renewable sources, but its government is exploring new financing instruments, such as a sovereign green bond, to help other sectors in the transition to net-zero. (Image: Picardo Photography / Alamy)

By Fermín Koop
BUENOS AIRES, Dec 23 2021 (IPS)

Sustainable finance continues to expand in Latin America, as governments and companies take advantage of growing interest among investors in instruments that protect biodiversity and respond to the climate crisis. In 2020, more than US$16 billion of green, social and sustainable bonds were issued in the region.

Though their purpose may vary, these bonds share similar characteristics. A company or government takes on debt, and these funds must be used exclusively to meet a specific environmental or social goal, such as developing clean transport infrastructure, expanding renewable energy or meeting the Sustainable Development Goals.

As green bonds continue to grow, Uruguay will be the first country in Latin America to borrow at an interest rate tied to fulfilment of its climate commitments

However, with the growth of sustainable finance, new and even more innovative types of debt instruments have emerged, such as one now proposed by Uruguay. The government of president Luis Lacalle Pou is working on a bond whose funds will not be designated for a specific purpose, but will instead pay for different initiatives, and at a variable interest rate.

This rate will depend on whether Uruguay meets a previously established environmental target, such as its nationally determined contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. In other words, if the country reduces its emissions as committed, it will be rewarded with a lower rate. And if it does not comply, it will be penalised with a higher rate.

So far, the only country to have developed such an instrument has been Luxembourg, which issued US$1.5 billion in debt in 2020. According to the Uruguay’s environment minister, Adrián Peña, the country’s own the bond will be for an amount between US$800 million and US$1 billion, with no exact date for its issuance yet set.

Developing countries like Uruguay are especially vulnerable to the climate and biodiversity crisis, and need financial support to meet their environmental or climate commitments. This is where sustainable finance comes in, as an instrument to support the transition of their economies.

Sustainable finance in Latin America

Mechanisms for sustainable finance continue to grow more numerous and diverse. Argentina and Colombia, for example, have recently called for an expansion of debt-for-nature swaps, a tool already in use that would allow them to reduce their debts and also meet environmental targets. Elsewhere, finance experts have pushed for the creation of new instruments such as the bond now proposed by Uruguay.

“Debt swaps were very popular decades ago. But now the picture has changed a lot. It’s more complicated in terms of who holds the debt and how it’s traded,” said Jochen Krimphoff, WWF’s lead on green sovereign bonds. “In the long run, the more sustainably you manage your natural resources as a government, the more your economy can thrive sustainably.”

A green sovereign bond indicates a country’s commitment to sustainable growth strategies and low greenhouse gas emissions, which can stimulate private sector investment in green initiatives. It can also allow for more effective collaboration between different areas of government, as Peña pointed out.

“It seemed to us that we had a lot of knowledge to bring to the Ministry of Finance, which didn’t know so much about our issues. That’s where the idea of the bond came from,” the minister told Diálogo Chino.

In 2019, Chile became the first country in Latin America to issue a sovereign green bond, which has so far raised US$7.44 billion after successive issuances. The country has also issued social and sustainable bonds, as have Ecuador, Mexico and Guatemala, according to the Climate Bonds Initiative.

The energy and transport sectors have benefited the most from financing, as has the land use sector. In the case of Chile, funds from its green bond went towards boosting clean transport, such as Santiago’s electric buses and the construction of new underground lines.

“There are many investors who want to invest in these instruments,” Pablo Cortinez, a sustainable finance consultant, said. “The fiduciary duty and profile of investors is changing, and more and more are calling themselves green. The largest economies in the region, such as Brazil and Argentina, should bet on green sovereign bonds.”

For Marcela Ponce, Latin American climate finance lead at the International Finance Corporation, 2020 was a landmark year for green sovereign issuance, and 2021 is not far behind. “Since COP26, finance ministries in Latin America have shown great appetite for the green bond market,” she added.

Uruguay’s new bond

Unlike Chile, Uruguay will not issue a green bond, per se, as the funds can be used for any desired purpose. However, by linking the bond’s interest rate to the NDC, the government will create an additional incentive to direct finance towards initiatives that help it meet its climate change targets.

Uruguay submitted its NDC in 2017, in which it proposes per-gas carbon intensity reduction targets for three specific gases: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, with reductions of 24%, 48% and 57% respectively by 2030, on an unconditional basis. A new NDC is expected to be submitted in 2022.

About 70% of Uruguay’s greenhouse gas emissions come from the agricultural sector, two thirds of which originate from beef production, according to the most recent emissions inventory. The government hopes that better pasture management will reduce emissions significantly.

“Uruguay is taking on a high political cost with the new sovereign bond. But if it succeeds, it would be a milestone for the region,” said Sebastián Ramos, a partner in the banking and finance department of Ferrere, a law firm in Montevideo. “The learning curve is high, as it is the first in the region with a sovereign bond of this type.”

Juán Giraldez and Stephanie Fontana of international law firm Cleary Gottlieb describe the debt instrument Uruguay wants to push as “the next frontier in sovereign financing”. However, they also highlight risks and challenges given its novelty, and as something so far only developed by Luxembourg.

For the bond to be successful, governments must be able to justify to their investors the choice of the specific target to which the interest rate is fixed, over other possibilities – the NDC, in Uruguay’s case. In addition, the target must be achievable during the life of the bond and a third party in charge of monitoring the actual achievement of the target must be defined.

“With the bond we are designing, Uruguay will have a fiduciary mandate to take care of the environment and reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” said Uruguay’s economy minister Azucena Arbeleche in an interview. “The incentives of the investor and issuer will be aligned for the fulfilment of a certain indicator.”

Further details on Uruguay’s sovereign green bond, including a date for first issuance, are likely to be confirmed in early 2022. Supporters of such instruments will be hoping that, if successful, it may be a catalyst for their growth and uptake in Latin America, which could provide a boost to sustainable transitions across the region.

This article was originally published by China Dialogue

More than 200 million people depend in some way on small-scale fisheries. Ending harmful fishery subsidies would give industrially overfished stocks an opportunity to bounce back. Credit: Christopher Pala/IPS

By Fermín Koop
BUENOS AIRES, Aug 2 2021 (IPS)

After more than 20 years of negotiations, the World Trade Organization (WTO) has moved a step closer to an agreement on ending harmful fishing subsidies. The deal would set new rules for the global fishing industry and limit government funding that contributes to unsustainable fishing and the depletion of global fish stocks.

In a meeting with government ministers and heads of national delegations, WTO members vowed to finish the negotiations before the WTO’s Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12) in late November, and to empower their delegations in Geneva to do so. Members also said the negotiating text currently on the table can be used as the basis to strike a final agreement.

Eliminating all harmful subsidies could help fish populations recover. Specifically, it would result in an increase of 12.5% in global fish biomass by 2050, which translates into nearly 35 million metric tonnes of fish – almost three times Africa’s entire fish consumption in a single year

“It’s been a successful day,” WTO chief Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala told reporters at the close of the meeting. “In 20 years of negotiations, this is the closest we have ever come towards reaching an outcome – a high-quality outcome that would contribute to building a sustainable blue economy. I feel new hope.”

The talks’ chair, Santiago Wills, was also upbeat: “I believe that the answers today have given us the ingredients to reach a successful conclusion. Members now want to move to text-based negotiations. Twenty years has been long enough. If we continue [negotiating] for another 20 years, there won’t be any fish left.”

Negotiators at the WTO had been tasked with eliminating subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and prohibiting certain subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing. Talks have been going on since 2001 but differences between governments have hindered progress.

2020 had been set as a deadline to strike an agreement, but talks were delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions and the US presidential elections. A deadline was then set for this July, which was again missed. Now, Okonjo-Iweala, appointed as head of the WTO in March, aims to reach an agreement by year-end in what will be a key test for the organisation’s credibility, with members deadlocked on other fronts.

“In international negotiations of this type only two things are relevant. The nitty-gritty to make sure everybody is on the same page, and the spirit that prevails. If Ngozi and Wills reflected correctly what happened in the meeting, we can say there’s cautious optimism over an agreement,” Remi Parmentier, director of environmental consultancy The Varda Group, told China Dialogue Ocean.

A potential agreement

At the meeting, ministers discussed an eight-page draft agreement, which lists a range of subsidy bans and some conditions for exemptions for poorer countries, all of which are yet to be finalised. While some delegations like the EU were positive, several ministers expressed reservations over the content of the text.

“Clearly, it will lead to capacity constraints for developing countries, while advanced nations will continue to grant subsidies,” Indian trade minister Piyush Goyal said at the meeting, regarding one part of the text. Pakistan described the draft as “regressive and unbalanced,” while the African coalition said “significant gaps” remain.

Countries’ differences were acknowledged by Ngozi and Wills at the meeting. Nevertheless, they remain optimistic and said the issues would be resolved once countries move into text-based negotiations. The agreement on fishing subsidies will require a consensus among all member states, according to WTO rules.

The draft deal essentially proposes three categories of prohibited subsidies; those that support IUU fishing, affect overfished stocks, or lead to overcapacity and overfishing. While this may sound simple, the political, economic and cultural complexities represent real challenges.

One of the main issues has been the demand for developing countries and the poorest nations to receive so-called special and differential treatment. While this is widely accepted for the poorest countries, demands from self-identified developing countries to be exempt from subsidy constraints has proven to be difficult to accept.

Many of the major fishing nations are considered developing countries by the WTO, including China, which has one of the world’s biggest fishing fleets. China’s minister of commerce, Wang Wentao, expressed China’s “support for the conclusion of [fishing subsidies] negotiations before the end of MC12.” Speaking at the meeting on 15 July, Wang stressed that concluding the negotiations would represent a major contribution from the WTO to the United Nations’ 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. “As a developing country and a major fishing power, China will take on obligations commensurate with our level of development”.

At the meeting, Wang also introduced China’s emphasis on green development in future policies on fishing subsidies and its “zero-tolerance” policy towards IUU.

Isabel Jarrett, manager of The Pew Charitable Trusts’ project to end harmful fisheries subsidies, told China Dialogue Ocean that an agreement “with too many loopholes” would undermine the WTO’s sustainability goals. The final text has to ensure that governments aren’t allowed to subsidise “irresponsible practices that can hurt fish populations,” she added.

The scale of the problem

Subsidies paid to the global fishing industry amount to around US$35 billion per year (228 billion yuan). Of this, $20 billion is given in forms that enhance the capacity of large fishing fleets, such as fuel subsidies and tax exemption programmes, according to the European Parliament’s Committee on Fisheries.

In 2018, the world’s top 10 providers of harmful fisheries subsidies gave out $15.4 billion in total, according to a report by Oceana. The EU, as a bloc, provided $2 billion, ranking third behind China and Japan.

Research by Pew has found that eliminating all harmful subsidies could help fish populations recover. Specifically, it would result in an increase of 12.5% in global fish biomass by 2050, which translates into nearly 35 million metric tonnes of fish – almost three times Africa’s entire fish consumption in a single year.

The need for progress on an agreement has gained new urgency during the last few years, as the world’s fish populations have continued to fall below sustainable levels. Around 60% of assessed stocks are fully exploited and 30% are overexploited, according to the latest figures from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

The termination of harmful subsidies, which is embedded in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), would be seen as key progress on ocean sustainability ahead of this year’s UN biodiversity conference in Kunming, scheduled for October, and the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow in November.

“This is the year that the agreement has to be delivered. The WTO chief has made positive pronouncements of an agreement this year. There’s light at the end of this 20-year tunnel. The alternative of being in the tunnel shadows is a depressing prospect at the time ocean life is declining,” Peter Thomson, UN special envoy for the ocean, said in a recent webinar.

This article was originally published by China Dialogue

Two drill rigs at the Vaca Muerta oil field in Loma Campana, in southern Argentina. Credit: Fabiana Frayssinet/IPS

By Fermín Koop
BUENOS AIRES, Jun 24 2021 (IPS)

Latin America is investing too little in a green recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, with only 2.2% of the region’s stimulus funds spent on environmentally sustainable projects last year, according to a new platform developed by Oxford University and the UN.

Last year, the 33 countries of the region allocated US$318 billion to fiscal and stimulus measures to alleviate the economic impacts of the pandemic, of which only $46 billion qualifies as green, according to the platform. The percentage is significantly lower than the 19% it calculates as the global average.

“The region has reached an economic crossroads. Either governments continue to support the old, dying industries of the past or invest in sustainable industries that can drive future prosperity,” said Brian O’Callaghan of Oxford University. “The new economic opportunities for the region are monumental.”

The region has reached an economic crossroads. Either governments continue to support the old, dying industries of the past or invest in sustainable industries that can drive future prosperity,
Brian O'Callaghan, Oxford University

Analysis of more than 1,100 policies shows that 77% of Latin America’s pandemic recovery budget was allocated to short-term rescue measures to address urgent needs and save lives. Only 16.1% went towards long-term recovery plans.

On average, the region allocated US$490 per capita to pandemic recovery, while in other developing economies the figure averages $650. Only six countries spent more than 0.1% of their GDP on recovery plans. They were Chile (14.9%), Bolivia (10.5%) and Brazil (9.26%).

Guy Edwards, a researcher on the geopolitics of climate change and Latin America, said the region is at risk of being left behind if it doesn’t change direction. He called for a review of spending plans and the careful elimination of fossil fuel subsidies to reduce the negative impact on fiscal accounts, emissions and deadly air pollution.

“Working with countries to align their recovery plans with the Paris Agreement will be a vital first step,” he said, adding; “This requires supporting countries to prioritise investments and policies to protect nature and boost renewable energy and clean public transport, which can create jobs, reduce inequality and tackle the root causes of migration.”

Latin America: An economy in recession

Latin America’s GDP fell by 7.7% last year and will not return to pre-pandemic levels until 2024, according to the UN’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). As elsewhere in the world, countries have been urged to seize the crisis as an opportunity to initiate a green recovery.

However, achieving this has proven difficult for Latin America. In addition to responding to the demands of the pandemic, governments in the region have to cope with high levels of sovereign debt to private creditors, multilateral agencies and, in some cases, China.

“The response to the pandemic is leading to increased debt, which limits our ability to direct investments towards environmental sustainability. However, putting climate action as a driver of recovery has never been more important,” said Andrea Meza, Costa Rica’s environment and energy minister.

The region has accounted for nearly a third of all global deaths from Covid-19, despite being home to 8% of the world’s population, UNEP said. The situation has pushed environmental and climate policies down the list of government priorities in most countries.

The new Oxford University platform, which for now uses preliminary data, revealed that most pandemic recovery funds have been spent on infrastructure for fossil energy sources and unsustainable port and airport infrastructure, leading to increased carbon emissions.

Argentina, Mexico and Brazil focused their post-pandemic spending on these polluting sectors, providing increased subsidies to fossil fuel companies and boosting new projects. Chile, Jamaica and Colombia, meanwhile, stood out for their efforts in electric transport and renewable energy.

“We seek to develop short-term measures but with a long-term vision, promoting the circular economy and new businesses associated with natural capital,” said Daniel Gómez Gaviria, deputy director of Colombia’s National Planning Department. “Government revenues are concentrated in fossil fuels and minerals, so we need to diversify.”

A green recovery

Boosting a green recovery in Latin America not only makes sense in environmental terms but also in economic terms, thanks to the numerous benefits and jobs that could be generated.

The 2015 Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to 2°C by the end of the century. To achieve this, greenhouse gas emissions must peak as soon as possible and then fall to zero by 2050.

The transition to net emissions is technically possible in Latin America, according to a report by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), through carbon-free electricity production, electrification of industry and transport, and enhanced energy efficiency.

“There is still an opportunity for governments in the region to pursue smart and environmentally sustainable investments. The benefits of that kind of spending are really very good,” O’Callaghan said. “A green recovery can reduce inequality and lead to sustainable economies.”

The region would save up to US$621 billion annually if the energy and transport sectors achieved emissions neutrality by 2050, while generating 7.7 million new jobs, according to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Most countries’ climate commitments submitted so far fall short of meeting Paris Agreement targets. Latin America is no exception, according to ECLAC. To reverse this, new, more ambitious commitments are expected in the run-up to the COP26 climate summit in November.

Latin America accounts for 5% of global emissions, mostly from the energy sector, agriculture and land-use change. But the proportion is increasing as countries continue to develop fossil fuels and fail to embark on an energy transition.

Costa Rica remains the only country in Latin America to have officially presented, and started to implement, a long-term decarbonisation strategy, which includes the energy sector. Other countries such as Chile and Argentina are working on it and could present their respective plans this year.

Edwards said: “The design of long-term decarbonisation plans, working closely with all stakeholders, can help to guide the recovery and support governments to select sustainable infrastructure projects to help people and get economies aligned with the Paris goals and the Sustainable Development Goals.”

This article was originally published by ChinaDialogue

Oil pump jack pumping crude out of the ground in Neuquen, Argentina (Image Alamy/Diálogo Chino)

By Fermín Koop
BUENOS AIRES, Nov 26 2020 (IPS)

As the world’s leading economies direct trillions of dollars towards Covid-19 recovery packages, a significant proportion is going to fossil fuel industries without climate stipulations, according to the 2020 edition of the Climate Transparency Report – which has assessed the climate performance of G20 countries.

Up until the middle of October, the G20 spent US$393 billion on support to the energy sector, with 53.5% going to fossil fuels ($175 billion to oil and gas, and $16.2 billion to coal). Of this, 86% has been provided without conditions for improved environmental action or performance.

The report shows that at least 19 of the G20 countries have provided financial support to their domestic oil, coal and gas sectors, including Argentina, Brazil and Mexico. If they continue along this path, governments risk reversing, instead of locking in, positive pre-Covid trends such as a stable expansion of renewable energy.

At least 19 of the G20 countries have provided financial support to their domestic oil, coal and gas sectors, including Argentina, Brazil and Mexico

“The recovery packages can solve the climate crisis or make it worse,” says Charlene Watson of the Overseas Development Institute. “Some G20 members like the EU, France, or Germany are setting mostly a good example. Others direct too much support to fossil fuels, putting at risk positive recent developments.”

G20 economies represent more than 80% of global GDP and three-quarters of global trade. The group is also responsible for 75% of global emissions and therefore has a major role in fulfilling the goal of the Paris Agreement to avoid a temperature increase of more than 2C, or ideally 1.5C, above the pre-industrial norm.

However, existing G20 commitments are insufficient to accomplish that goal, and would lead the world to a temperature 2.7C higher by the end of the century, according to the report. Countries are expected to update their climate pledges in 2020 and 2021 ahead of the COP26 climate summit.

Challenging previous progress

Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the results of climate action in G20 countries were becoming visible in key areas. Energy-related CO2 emissions decreased by 0.1% in 2019 – a remarkable departure from the 1.9% increase in 2018 and a longer-term annual average growth rate of 1.4% between 2005 and 2017.

This was largely due to the expansion of renewable energy. The share of renewables in power generation increased in 19 of the G20 countries last year, accounting for 27% of power generation in the group. It’s projected to continue increasing in all G20 countries and to make up almost 28% of the power generation this year.

“Before the pandemic hit, results of climate action were coming to fruition in some energy-related sectors and the crisis consolidated those trends in the majority of the G20 countries,” said Jorge Villarreal of Iniciativa Climática de México. “But without further climate action, these effects will be temporary.”

Looking back on 2019, the report notes that despite a decrease in coal consumption, fossil fuels still accounted for 81.5% of primary energy supply, because of increases in oil (+1%) and gas (+3%) consumption. Also in 2019, countries provided US$130 billion in subsidies to fossil fuels, up from US$117 billion in 2018, despite their goal to eliminate them.

Progress in the transport, building and industrial sectors is also lagging and many G20 members are still losing tree cover, diminishing critical carbon sinks. CO2 emissions from the transport sector grew by 1.5%, followed by a 1.2% increase in the industry sector and a 0.9% growth in the building sector.

No G20 countries have targets for reaching zero deforestation in the 2020s, which would be needed to meet the Paris Agreement 1.5C goal. Although China, the EU and Mexico have targets for net-zero deforestation for further down the line. This is especially worrying in Latin America, considering the forest fires and illegal logging in Argentina and Brazil.

The scenario for Latin America

G20 members Brazil, Argentina and Mexico were found to be off-track to meet the 1.5C goal. Argentina is the only one of the three to emit more than the G20 average, having increased its emissions 35% since 1990.

Amid the pandemic, Brazil has provided economic support to the industrial and transport sectors without attaching any environmental conditions. Meanwhile, deregulation in land use in the Amazon is likely to increase logging, mining, agriculture and forestry activities, leading to further deforestation.

The Bolsonaro administration cut the budget for key forest protection monitoring and enforcement and has rolled back numerous environmental protection policies. Rates of illegal deforestation are continuing to rise, with over a third of deforestation in 2019 taking place on public lands.

“From 2012 to 2019 the level of deforestation in Brazil grew by 122%. If deforestation gets out of control, NDC goals won’t be met. The country should urgently reinstate and strengthen policies on monitoring and preventing illegal deforestation,” said William Willis, from CentroClima NGO in Brazil.

In Mexico, a large proportion of the stimulus package has been directed towards infrastructure investments, including a flagship oil refinery and airport expansion, plus tax breaks for Pemex, Mexico’s state-owned oil company. Furthermore, barriers were placed to the wind and solar energy dispatch, prioritising oil-fired power plants.

The country called oil a strategic resource and seeks to increase its use for electricity generation, increasing investment in fossil fuel exploration and extraction. Instead it should reopen further renewable energy auctioning rounds, the report argued.

There is a similar scenario in Argentina. During the pandemic, the Fernández administration introduced measures to increase commodity exports and fossil fuels. The government artificially fixed the domestic oil barrel price to offset the sharp fall in international oil prices.

Fossil fuels still make up 86% of Argentina’s energy mix. Despite the increase in renewable energy over the last two decades, the carbon intensity of the energy mix has barely changed. The share of fossil fuels in the global primary 1.5C energy mix needs to fall to 67% by 2030 and to 33% by 2050.

“The government didn’t introduce any ‘green’ measures in its recovery stimulus plans. On the contrary, it continues to strongly subsidise fossil fuels, such as gas. In order to ensure a sustainable recovery, the focus needs to be put on green energy infrastructure,” said Enrique Maurtua Konstantinidis, senior adviser on climate change at FARN, an Argentine NGO.

Looking ahead

There is growing recognition that a fundamental, structural shift is required among G20 countries, the report argued. As such, in 2019 and 2020 many countries have started to set net-zero emissions goals to decarbonize their economies by mid-century, with likely more to come over the next few months.

In June 2019, France and the UK set net-zero targets for 2050, and by the end of the year, the EU and Germany had made similar announcements. In 2020, Canada, China, South Africa, South Korea, and Japan joined in, with China aiming to be carbon-neutral before 2060. Cities and companies in G20 countries have announced similar goals.

Representatives from G20 countries met virtually on Friday and Saturday, November 20-21 for the bloc’s annual summit under the presidency of Saudi Arabia. It will be largely focused on addressing the implications of the coronavirus pandemic, future health care plans and steps for reviving the global economy.

“We urgently need more ambition and leadership from the world’s biggest economies – and emitters – at the upcoming G20 Summit and next year’s UN Climate Conference” said Catrina Godinho from the Humboldt-Viadrina Governance Platform. “The US election result offers some hope for international climate politics.”

This article was originally published by Dialogo Chino