By Jan Lundius
OSLO, May 20 2024 – Erik Solheim, a senior internationally renowned politician and diplomat, has long been an advocate for combining development assistance with private investment and better taxation systems in recipient countries. 

He has argued that linking international agreements to global taxes, or quotas, combined with private investments in renewable resources would effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

To gain further insight into the relationship between politics and climate change, IPS columnist Jan Lundius spoke with Solheim.

Solheim served in the Norwegian government from 2005 to 2012 as Minister of International Development; he also took on responsibility for the Ministry of Environment in 2007 and held both offices until 2012. He later chaired the OECD Development Assistance Committee and served for two years as Under-Secretary of the United Nations and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP). He has also been one of the most recognizable figures in peace negotiations in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sudan, and Myanmar.

IPS: We know that for most of your life, you have been engaged with environmental issues. Please share with us what you consider to be the greatest threats to the environment and humankind’s existence.

Solheim: We are facing a triple environmental crisis. Climate change triggered by fossil fuel burning is a very grave threat, as is the general pollution of our habitat. The ongoing degradation of our nature leads to an increasing and irreversible annihilation of plants and animals. All this does not bode well for the future and coming generations. This development takes a mounting economic toll, including on the farming sector, a prerequisite for human survival. We are facing a huge global environmental crisis, remedied by far too limited and insufficient measures. Action is simply overdue.

IPS: Another global UN climate change conference, COP29, will be held in November in Baku, Azerbaijan. Are these meetings close to achieving climate change goals?

Solheim: The climate meetings are generally a disappointment because they focus on issues of limited significance and are run on the basis of small wins or losses for diplomatic actors. Let’s focus less on the negotiations and more on the fact that these global summits bring together politicians, business, and civil society from all corners of the globe. They highlight the state of affairs of current research, raise awareness, and give an opportunity to showcase success stories and inspire action. However, it’s the political economy that matters most.

IPS: Is there still any hope whatsoever of stopping an obviously catastrophic environmental destruction?

Solheim: Contrary to many others, I am very optimistic. In most countries, business is far ahead of political decisions. What matters are the decisions made by the most influential political leaders in the world, not the negotiations. Ten years ago, the West was leading the world in the green transformation. Now Asia, countries like China, India, and Indonesia have moved to the front seats. This is because the price of solar power has fallen 90 percent and the price of wind nearly as much. This means that a new development path is possible. There is no longer a choice between economy and ecology. We can create more jobs and prosperity by going green. Asian leaders have understood this. That’s why China now stands for 60 percent of all green technologies in the world, while India is investing massively in solar energy and Indonesia has brought deforestation down to zero. A merger of green policies, economic considerations, and a renewable revolution will supercharge the change.

IPS: As you know very well, after months of intense and contentious negotiations, on day one of COP28, countries set the Loss and Damage Fund in motion and agreed on details, such as selecting the World Bank as host of the Fund. Several countries followed by pledging about USD 700 million. The US pledged USD 17.5 million. The work is far from done. In the lead-up to COP29, countries will be looking for confirmation that the World Bank can meet the conditions required to host the Loss and Damage Fund. How do you see this evolving from a political perspective?

Solheim: A critical issue in climate talks that will take center stage in Baku is the Loss and Damage Fund. This is a critical and just demand from developing countries. To date, the US has emitted 25 times as much per capita as India. The difference is even bigger if we compare it to Africa. It’s very clear that the developed nations should take responsibility for compensating for the damage we have caused.

It’s important that the fund becomes an unbureaucratic and effective mechanism and that it focuses on climate adaptation, which is mainly a government responsibility everywhere. Flood protection or fighting drought and extreme weather cannot be done by the private sector.

Climate mitigation, however, is a huge business opportunity. Solar, wind, and hydro are now cheaper than fossil fuels. We should tap into the scaling and innovation of the private sector for climate mitigation. Governments and development banks can help with blended finance and risk alleviation for investments in the war-torn and most dysfunctional states where risk is high.

IPS: What do your experiences as a Norwegian Minister of the Environment tell you about difficulties in implementing measures amending environmental degradation and climate change?

Solheim: Norway struggles to get out of its addiction to oil. The big shame is that Norway is not using its Sovereign Wealth Fund for green investment. This Oil Fund is the biggest fund in the world, in the range of 150 billion USD. Even if a small percentage of this fund were invested in green endeavors, this would make a huge global difference. It would also help Norway disperse its risks and other funds would follow suit.

Lately, the war in Ukraine has more than tripled oil prices, something that Norway, as an oil-producing country, has benefited from. When this happened, there was in Norway a tangible but, in the long run, harmful feeling of relief among business and political leaders. They felt they could cling to oil for a few more years and didn’t need to take drastic action. This is a very dangerous long-term strategy, as it will slow down the necessary change and hit Norwegian competitiveness in the green economy of the future.

However, in a few other areas, Norway has done well. We have the highest number of electric cars per capita anywhere in the world. Ninety percent of all new cars sold in Norway are electric. We are also global leaders in electric ferries. Norway initiated the global system to protect the world’s rain forests, the most pristine and important of all our magnificent ecosystems.

IPS: Do you think the Nordic countries can make a difference in the global effort on climate change?

Solheim: In the global context, they are all small countries and hardly any longer in the front seat when it comes to lowering the global threat of climate change. However, the countries are technically advanced and have, in some areas, an important and influential role, like Denmark on wind energy, Sweden on biomass, and Norway on electric cars. The Nordic countries should aim at using our research, business, and political power to drive the necessary green transformation.

Nevertheless, the initiative now rests with Asia. In the Indian state of Gujarat, the Adani Group is constructing a combined solar and wind farm. Its 30 gigawatts are at the same level as all hydropower production in a hydro-advanced nation like Norway. In Indonesia, the paper and pulp giant RGE is protecting a huge rain forest and does not harm virgin rainforests with its massive paper business. Last year, China invested 900 billion USD in renewable energy. That’s nearly double the entire, massively oil-fed Norwegian economy. The Nordic nations need to get up early in the morning if they wish to compete and not leave all green industries to China.

IPS: Apart from being an influential Norwegian politician, you have also been diplomatically active, both as a diplomat and as a high-ranking UN official. How do you consider the UN’s role when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change?

Solheim: The UN is absolutely needed as a global platform for common action, as an organizer of joint endeavors, and as a forum for international negotiations, providing guidelines and regulations for international cooperation. However, the UN is at the moment very weak, suffering from an antiquated structure and decreasing importance.

The UN must adapt to a world that has completely changed since its establishment in 1945. To take one example, the Security Council reflects a bygone reality. In those days, Great Britain was an empire spanning the globe; now it is an island in the Atlantic. India, however, has 1,4 billion inhabitants, 25 times the British population. Furthermore, India will soon be the world’s third-largest economy and a fast-rising political power. Obviously, India should have a permanent seat at the Security Council, not the UK. The EU should represent Europe, and a continent like Africa should also have a seat. The UN is very poorly led and has a culture focused on processes and not on results. Furthermore, it suffers from reflecting the global power situation in 1945, not in 2025—not to speak of 2050. Indonesia is the fourth-biggest nation in the world and will, by 2050, be the fourth-biggest economy. In the UN, you can hardly find an Indonesian national. We desperately need a strong UN, fit for purpose in the 21st century.

IPS: How and why did you engage in environmental politics and what made you choose environmental politics instead of scientific research?

Solheim: From an early age, I learned to appreciate the beauty and openness of Norwegian nature, our mountains and fjords, hiking, and skiing. This love for nature has followed me throughout my life. I also had a desire to make a difference and was fascinated by politics from an early age. Like many others of my age, I was upset by the war in Vietnam, the unnecessary American war that killed 3 million people for all the wrong reasons. It’s enjoyable to see that Vietnam has risen from the ashes and is now one of the world’s most successful nations. I found politics to be challenging and interesting, with noise, action, and the ability to have an influence.

IPS: Talking about politics, what do you think of Trump’s chances of winning the presidential elections, the war in Ukraine and how these events might influence European cohesion and environmental policies?

Solheim: Half a year is a very long time in politics, but Trump is now the favorite to win in November. Four years ago, Biden carried, with a narrow margin, key swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. However, Trump is now in an even better position.

Trump’s climate policies make no sense. He will slow down American climate action, thereby hurting the American people both economically and environmentally. China will take over nearly all green production. How much global impact a conceivable Trump presidency will have has yet to be seen. Regardless of what happens in the White House, American business is likely to continue to pursue green objectives. Neither China, India, Europe, nor any other major economy is likely to follow him into climate denial.

One positive effect could be that Europe moves away from being the tail of the US, taking a new, more independent direction, and adopting a policy adapted to what President Macron has called “strategic autonomy.” If economic collaboration, research, and climate mitigation are maintained and further developed within the EU, it will gain increased importance as a global force.

Concerning the war in Ukraine, it is obviously unacceptable that a sovereign nation be invaded and destroyed. During the years and decades before the Russian invasion, NATO made all the mistakes in the book, but that cannot serve as an excuse for war and blatant land grabs. The war is a disaster for Russia and Ukraine, and it distracts world leaders from pressing issues related to the environment, climate, and economy. It’s time for peace talks; the sooner, the better.

The world is facing huge challenges related to economic recovery, environmental and climatological dangers, and, not least, the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and other places. If we work together—China and India, Europe and America, as well as all other stakeholders—there is no limit to the progress we can achieve. We need to fight the forces that wish to split us and unite in common action.

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

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

By Ulrika Modéer and Christophe Schiltz
UNITED NATIONS, May 20 2024 – This year has been called the ‘super election’ year, with 3.7 billion people potentially going to the polls. This historic political moment is also an opportunity to reflect on what these billions of voter experiences will look like. Who will vote, who can run for office and who might be excluded from the political process?

It goes without saying and is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that everyone should have the right to participate in the political processes in their country, and huge strides have been made in recent years to recognize and advocate for LGBTIQ+ rights. But the reality for LGBTIQ+ people is often very different.

Because despite progress, one third of countries maintain laws that make same-sex relationships illegal. For the LGBTIQ+ people living in these countries, what is their experience with elections, as voters or as candidates?

Consider the transgender person who faces harassment whenever they leave their home and is ultimately excluded from their community. Or the LGBTIQ+ groups that are receiving constant online hate because of a wave of social media disinformation. To what extent are they free to express their political views, without fear of discrimination, hate speech or even physical violence?

These experiences do not exist in a vacuum. They are the result of a vast swathe of anti-LGBTIQ+ laws and policies, which in some countries are continuing to gather momentum, compounded by the pervasive stigma and discrimination many LGBTIQ+ people face in their everyday lives.

And they directly impact our political processes by silencing people, limiting the extent to which they can have a voice in their societies and in the decisions which affect them, and entrenching structural discrimination.

UNDP has been working for decades to help break these barriers and to strengthen laws, policies and programmes that respect the human rights of all individuals. This demands we work with a broad range of global partners and advocates, recognizing that LGBTIQ+ people are a diverse group and face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.

But with estimates suggesting about half of the global population may vote this year, it does throw into sharp focus the need to ensure that the people determining the leadership and political direction of their countries, truly reflects the full diversity of the world we live in.

We have reason to be hopeful that they will. Because with the steadfast support of partners like Luxembourg, UNDP has been supporting global efforts, including LGBTIQ+ organizations and activists, to help transform LGBTIQ+ rights.

For instance, last October, UNDP launched its global publication ‘Inclusive Democracies: A guide to strengthening the participation of LGBTI+ persons in political and electoral processes,’ in a jointly cohosted event with the LGBTI intergroup of the European Parliament.

Its aim is to provide policymakers, electoral management bodies, legislators, civil society and other stakeholders a clear set of tools to work towards a more equal exercise of civic and political rights, freedom of expression and association, and access to public services. The publication, informed by UNDP’s work globally, includes best practices from over 80 countries, mainly from the Global South.

At the same time, UNDP is working in 72 countries and all regions of the world to integrate LGBTIQ+ people and issues in development efforts.

This includes working with young key populations in Southern Africa – which includes young gay men and other men who have sex with men, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people – to help challenge some of the negative stereotypes appearing in mainstream media, and to change the negative narratives.

Support has focused on organizing media skills training for young people to build their journalistic skills and enhance the use of digital platforms for advocacy on issues affecting them.

But digital platforms also have the power to do great harm, and LGBTIQ+ individuals often face disproportionate online harassment, posing a threat to their equal political participation. With support from Luxembourg, UNDP has been able to prioritize combating dangerous online speech that targets individuals based on gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

For example, the Cabo Verde Free and Equal Campaign, part of UNDP’s efforts, focuses on fighting gender stereotypes and eliminating prejudices through legal and communication channels.

The global efforts to address LGBTIQ+ rights are having an impact. The recent HIV Policy Lab report – produced jointly by Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute, UNDP and the Global Network of People Living with HIV (GNP+) shows a clear and ongoing trend toward decriminalization of consensual same-sex sex around the world, with more countries removing punitive laws in 2022 than in any single year in the past 25 years.

These advances are part of a collective effort, because building inclusive and equitable societies means building a coalition of partners. At UNDP, the importance of partners like Luxembourg in helping to fund this vital work, and shining a light on the injustices LGBTIQ+ people face, is never underestimated.

This is important because investments in human rights are investments in our societies. And thanks to Luxembourg and our core donors, UNDP has been able to help people, whoever and wherever they are, to have a voice in shaping their societies.

This year, the stakes have never been higher. The decisions made in the elections taking place will set the course for how societies develop, and to what extent human rights are respected. Which is why we must also use this moment to recognize our partners and to renew our commitments to the LGBTIQ+ community.

The world’s attention will be focused on the election winners and losers. But the outcome is only one piece of the puzzle. Ensuring the political processes taking place are inclusive, credible and peaceful is how we ultimately build a world where everyone can vote, anyone can run for office, and most importantly, where no one will be silenced.

Ulrika Modeer is UN Assistant Secretary-General and Director of the Bureau of External Relations and Advocacy, UNDP; Christophe Schiltz is Director General, Directorate for Development Cooperation and Humanitarian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs, Defence, Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, Luxembourg

Source: UNDP

IPS UN Bureau

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

By Stella Paul
NAIROBI, May 20 2024 – After a week-long discussion by delegates from 196 countries, the 26th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advisors (SBSTTA) of UN Biodiversity has concluded with a set of recommendations on several issues, including living modified organisms (LMOs) and synthetic biology. All nations must consider the recommendations, discuss them, and possibly adopt them at the Biodiversity COP in October. However, many questions remain unanswered and unclear.

LMOs and Synthetic Biology in Biodiversity COP

Synthetic biology, though identified as a new emerging issue, has been discussed for well over a decade at UN Biodiversity. In fact, 13 years ago, at COP11 in Hyderabad, India, nations took note of the proposals for new and emerging issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. They had also noted the need to consider the potential positive and negative impacts of components, organisms and products resulting from synthetic biology techniques on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Based on SBSTTA’s suggestions, countries decided to create an ad hoc technical expert group (AHTEG) on synthetic biology in 2014. This group would talk about “synthetic biology as a further development and new dimension of modern biotechnology that combines science, technology, and engineering to make it easier and faster to understand, design, redesign, manufacture, and/or modify genetic materials, living organisms, and biological systems.” Later, the COP also asked AHTEG to discuss synthetic biology and risk assessment under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agreement aimed at ensuring the safe handling, transport, and use of living modified organisms (LMOs). The protocol was adopted on January 29, 2000, as a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and entered into force on September 11, 2003.

David Cooper, acting Executive Director of UN Biodiversity and Senka Barudanovic, SBSTTA chair, address the press. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

The Mandate of SBSTTA-26

Brinda Dass is the Gene Drive Policy Lead at Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, US and a member of the AHTEG who attended the SBSTTA-26 in Nairobi. Dass revealed that for the Nairobi meet, AHTEG was given the task of developing a special guideline on engineered gene drive and at SBSTTA, the major discussion on LMO and synthetic biology was centered around genetically modified mosquitoes.

“For risk assessment, the request from the last COP (COP15 held in Montreal, Canada, in 2022) was to have a draft outline prepared. The request was very focused on the specific elements of engineered gene drive mosquitoes because that’s the most proximal use case because there’s work ongoing right now to generate engineered gene drive mosquitoes for malaria elimination and control in Africa.  So, our technical expert group was asked to prepare additional voluntary guidance on living modified organisms that contain engineered gene drives—and that’s what we did,” Dass told IPS.

Dass’s also commented that it was a successful meeting.

“Most parties, especially from the African continent—actually, almost all African delegations—accepted the document as they were happy to send it to the COP. So, they have approved it, they have accepted it, they were happy with what work was done and they wanted to move to COP. They don’t have any reservations on that,” Dass added.

Both Senka Barudanovic, who chaired all the sessions of SBSTTA and David Cooper, acting Executive Secretary of UN CBD, appeared to agree with Dass.

“I sincerely congratulate delegates for their hard work; I think it was a successful meeting where most parties demonstrated a spirit of compromise,” said Barudanovic.

“This meeting showed the willingness of parties to the CBD to reach consensus on the important scientific foundations of our work to achieve the Biodiversity Plan,” said Cooper. “The discussions have wide-reaching implications for biosafety, biotechnology, biodiversity in our oceans, and new global work on the health of people, plants, and animals.”

Brinda Dass, senior technical expert and Gene Drive Policy Lead at the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Engineered Gene Drive Versus Genetically Engineered Products

Genetic engineering involves the direct modification of an organism’s DNA, often in a controlled environment, without necessarily influencing inheritance patterns in the wild. This technology is usually applied in agriculture, medicine, and industrial biotechnology. For example, BT cotton and other genetically modified (GM) crops.

Engineered gene drive, on the other hand, uses specific genetic constructs to create inheritance patterns, which means the genetic modification has a higher chance of being passed on from one generation to another. The development of engineered malaria mosquitoes is done under this technology.

Since its impact would be on successive generations, engineered gene drive technology naturally raises significant ecological and ethical concerns due to the potential for widespread and irreversible impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity. One of the biggest concern is the potential spread of modified genes beyond the target population. For example, there is concern about the impact and effect of engineered gene drive malaria-resistant mosquitoes on other animals and other insects, including mosquitoes that do not cause malaria.

Experts also say that the whole issue of LMO and Synthetic Biology is also looked at with concern and skepticism because many find it too complicated.

One of the reasons that it is complicated is because there is no universal definition of what synthetic biology is. Because it largely captures many kinds of technologies and products, it is difficult to understand what does and doesn’t fall under the bucket of synthetic biology.

Another factor is the unequal participation of the delegates, which could be attributed to a variety of reasons, including lack of understanding.

“Not all the delegates speak up. So, we don’t know their level of understanding. By level of understanding, I mean, there’s factual understanding and then there’s understanding of what the implications are of the decisions that are being taken here. Of course, I can’t say more (on the reasons why they don’t speak or their understanding), because I don’t know all the delegates and I’m limited to their statements,” said a scientist from the US who works as the focal point on LMO but is unwilling to reveal his name as the US is not a signatory to the UN Biodiversity Convention.

Lucia DeSouza, senior biotechnology scientist at the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI). Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

The Arguments and the Questions

At SBSTTA, some participants indicated that despite days of discussions, several questions were left unanswered and that many parties and representatives of NGOs and indigenous peoples groups were not in agreement. Some of these experts have been following the biodiversity COPs, the developments at SBSTTA, and the Cartagena Protocol for a long time, and they allege that the issue of gene drive was being discussed at multiple meetings, which led to unnecessary use of time, efforts, and resources.

“If you look at the documents from synthetic biology, one of the things that they prioritize is gene drives. But the thing is that gene drive is also being looked at already under Cartagena protocol. So, if you ask me, it looks like duplication of effort because synthetic biology is supposed to do horizon scanning, which is to look at new and emerging technologies as they apply to CBD and the protocols, right? So, if they look and say gene drive is one of those technologies,. But then, we already have gene drives being worked on, it’s not so much new and emerging,” said a scientist unwilling to reveal her name as she is not authorized to speak with the media.

The same issue was also brought up by the delegate from Japan, who argued that gene drive technology is a technology that arrived several years ago. It has already emerged, and the world is already working on it. So, why was the issue still being discussed at SBSTTA as a new and emerging issue?

“It’s true; technical experts have been talking about synthetic biology for more than 10 years, but they never concluded whether it is a new and emergent issue. Even the self-limiting mosquitoes fall under the definition of LMO and it’s one that has been tested in the field for a long time and it’s actually approved for Brazil, Paraguay, if I’m not mistaken. So, it’s also even been in the market. So, what Japan here raised is a very important point, because we are wasting a lot of time,” says Lucia DeSouza, a Brazilian scientist who is the Executive Secretary of the Public Research and Regulation Initiative (PRRI), a global group of biotechnology scientists.

Recommendations of SBSTTA and the Future Course

According to a statement by the CBD Secretariat, on biosafety and biotechnology, the Parties recommended new voluntary guidance on the risk assessment on engineered gene drives. The recommended guidelines are aimed at strengthening transparency and scientific rigor in the process and continuing the detection and identification of LMOs.

For the issue of synthetic biology, SBSTTA recommended that further discussions are needed on the possibility of continuing horizon scanning, an approach that involves systematically exploring and analyzing emerging trends, innovations, and potential future developments in the field of synthetic biology. This approach helps policymakers, researchers, and stakeholders anticipate and prepare for future challenges and opportunities.

An example of horizon scanning for synthetic biology could be the development of genetically modified fish, which is currently being researched for possible aquaculture efficiency and food security.

However, because SBSTTA is an advisory group, the COP may or may not adopt its recommendations. But once a draft decision is sent to the COP—in this case the issue of engineered gene drive malaria mosquitoes—then the nations will have a chance to read and express their opinions. It is possible that they will object to or reject some of the draft’s provisions, but it is also very likely that the parties will eventually accept some version of the draft decision.

“We are discussing risk assessment. We are discussing how to build a management system based on this risk assessment. And then what? Then, where do we go? It’s a good question,” DeSouza said. “While we can’t predict where things will go from here, as long as this topic remains relevant for parties, they’re going to keep wanting to have conversations related to it. The only way the topic will end is if the products (like gene drive mosquitoes) stop being produced and used or if the parties stop taking an interest in it. If the parties stay interested, then SBSTTA will continue to develop technical guidance documents. Finally, the countries will develop their own domestic regulatory frameworks following all these guidelines and the Cartagena protocol.”
IPS UN Bureau Report

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