By Margaret López
CARACAS, Oct 29 2024 – Climate finance will be at the epicenter of the discussion at the UN Climate Change Conference 2024 (COP29). The focus will be on strengthening the fund and defining the conditions under which the countries of the Global South will be able to access this money. However, little is said about the scientific research that is required to gather the evidence and data to prove the loss and damage caused by the impact of climate change in developing countries.

One of the points under discussion is the need for countries of the Global South to provide comprehensive, scientifically backed reports on how they are being directly affected by the impacts of climate change. This requirement guarantees that money will flow to the most affected countries, but it ignores the inequality present in scientific research networks in the Global South.

Floods and the effects of storms or hurricanes are not the only topics we are discussing.  For example, will Latin American countries, such as Brazil or Argentina, be ready to provide data and evidence of how global warming precipitated an increase in dengue cases among their citizens in 2024?

Dengue cases in Latin America tripled compared to the same period in 2023. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) compiled reports of more than 12 million cases of dengue fever in the region up to middle October and, undoubtedly, this additional health burden is part of the less talked about impacts of climate change.

Research centers in Brazil or Argentina, two of the countries with the best scientific networks in the region, can surely deliver the studies to support a financial request to cover these health-related damages. But the scenario is very different if we look at the scientific networks of other Latin American countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, or my native Venezuela.

More than 3,000 Venezuelan scientists have left the country for lack of support and financial problems in its laboratories since 2009, according to the follow-up done by researcher Jaime Requena, a member of the Academy of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences (Acfiman, its acronym in Spanish). This is equivalent to half of the Venezuelan scientific force, considering that Venezuela had 6,831 active researchers in the Researcher Promotion Program (PPI) in 2009.

Only 11 Venezuelan scientists participated as authors in all the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In AR6, the most recent IPCC report, only three authors were Venezuelan.

Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay were also represented by three researchers in AR6, while other countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia did not even manage to add a scientist to the group of more than 700 authors.

Climatologist Paola Andrea Arias was part of the Colombian representation. She is one of those promoting that the IPCC broaden the diversity of authors in the next report on the effects of climate change in the world.

“We all do science with different perspectives; we will follow the same methods and the same standards, but we have different perspectives. We ask different questions and have different priorities. We see in science the possibility of answering or solving different problems and, obviously, that will be very focused on your reality, the world in which you live, the country or city where you are,” said Arias when I asked her about her participation in AR6.

The low participation of Latin American scientists in global research on climate change, such as that of the IPCC, also means less space and dissemination for those studies that try to track the impacts of climate change in the region. This pattern is also repeated in Africa and Asia.

Promoting more research on the damages and impacts of climate change in the Global South, in the end, is not something that can be separated from climate finance. A clear example is that the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) has just created a scientific committee for its biodiversity conservation fund, as announced during COP16 on biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

CAF explained that this new biodiversity committee will have “a key role” with recommendations based on scientific evidence to invest in environmental projects. The first tasks of this scientific committee will be focused on providing recommendations for conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of ecosystems in the Amazon, Cerrado, and Chocó, a program that will have access to 300 million dollars.

The creation of a scientific committee to deliver climate finance can be a first step, as shown by CAF’s experience in biodiversity. To move forward on this path, however, it is necessary to promote more funding for Latin American, African, and Asian scientists to do more local research on the impacts of climate change. It’s the only way to gather the scientific evidence to support the contention that the climate crisis represents an obstacle to development in those countries with the largest populations and the greatest number of disadvantages.

This opinion piece 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 Christian Tiambo
CALI, Colombia, Oct 29 2024 – As the UN’s COP16 biodiversity conference continues, the temptation is to focus on the wild flora and fauna under threat.

But there is another, less obvious yet just as critical biodiversity crisis unfolding around the world that also deserves attention.

A quarter of livestock breeds – from chickens, ducks and geese to horses, camels and cattle – are classified at risk of extinction. Even more concerning is the fact that a lack of data means the status of more than 50 per cent of breeds remains unknown. More than 200 livestock breeds have gone extinct since 2000, some without having ever been recorded.

Just 40 out of thousands of species of mammals and birds have been domesticated for food and agriculture yet these domesticated food-producing animals contribute an average of 40 per cent of the world’s agricultural gross domestic product. Eight of these species provide more than 95 per cent of the human food supply from livestock.

The erosion of local and locally adapted livestock diversity poses an especially serious threat to developing countries, where livestock-keeping generates as much as 80 per cent of agricultural GDP, providing much-needed food, fibre, fuel and draught power.

A shrinking pool of commercially improved livestock provides increasingly limited potential for animals to support food security, economic growth, climate adaptation and even ecosystem services that protect biodiversity more broadly. Maintaining agricultural biodiversity is essential for diverse, healthy diets and resilient, diversified forms of rural livelihoods.

It is therefore vital that negotiators at COP16 include livestock as well as wildlife in their National Biodiversity Strategies and Adaptation Plans (NBSAPs), including agreements to compensate countries for indigenous livestock DNA sequences.

As a minimum, countries should include specific targets for protecting livestock breeds within their NBSAPs to help enshrine the preservation of genetic diversity.

Setting actionable targets is a fundamental step towards maintaining a rich variety of livestock breeds, which is essential for breeding more resilient, heat tolerant and healthy animals.

The ability to improve livestock and make use of the locally adapted characteristics of indigenous breeds is becoming increasingly valuable as the impacts of climate change threaten conventional and exotic breeds. The diversity of local, locally adapted and non-conventional livestock constitute an essential resource that will ensure animal production is able to adapt to climate change, respond to new market opportunities and deal with new disease threats.

For example, the hardy Red Maasai sheep that is indigenous to East Africa and can cope with arid and hot conditions, was on the brink of extinction after many farmers replaced their flocks with South Africa’s Dorper breed to produce more meat. But unlike the Red Maasai, Dorper sheep are less able to thrive in drought conditions. Thankfully, the preservation of the Red Maasai by researchers at the International Livestock Research Institute’s (ILRI) Kapiti Research Station has supported their reintroduction, as well as crossbreeding programs to harness the beneficial traits of both.

Plans to compensate countries for recording such genetic resources, known as digital sequence information, and the associated traditional knowledge, must include livestock so that countries across Africa and the Global South can benefit and use this funding to re-invest in livestock conservation.

Countries should also include protections for the conservation of forages that feed livestock and wild herbivores in their NBSAPs. This is equally important for identifying resilient and low-emissions crops that can meet the nutritional needs of livestock.

Koronivia grass, for example, is native to Africa and is among the collection of germplasm stored at the Future Seeds genebank in Colombia. Breeders produced an improved variety of the grass that was shown to increase levels of soil carbon on tropical savannas by 15 per cent while also reducing nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from grazing cattle by a factor of 10.

Leveraging the full range of the world’s biodiversity can unlock improved breeds and varieties of forages to support sustainable livestock production and maximise its benefits for human development.

Alongside such protections for genetic resources and agricultural biodiversity, governments should also include sustainable livestock production within their NBSAPs to support rangeland restoration and achieve their biodiversity goals.

Livestock systems that integrate sustainable practices like managed grazing can enhance soil health, increase carbon sequestration, and promote ecosystem diversity while generating emissions that are comparable to wild herbivores.

For example, livestock manure already provides 14 per cent of the nitrogen used for crop production globally and a quarter of that used for crop production on mixed crop-and-livestock farms. These closed nutrient cycles replenish soils with nitrogen while also enhancing soil structure and organic matter, improving the nutrient- and water-holding capacities of soils and reducing soil erosion.

The natural world thrives when the balance of biodiversity is maintained, and this includes local and non-conventional livestock as well as wild animals.

For the countries where the right livestock breeds can determine hunger or health, poverty or prosperity, it is essential that the biodiversity talks include cattle, pigs and chickens alongside pandas, rhinos and cheetahs.

To fully take advantage of the diversity of livestock, the global community must conserve genetic resources and put them to use to enable communities to cope with climate change, meet changing market demands, resist diseases, and enhance global food security.

Dr. Christian Tiambo, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)

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 Norman Solomon
SAN FRANCISCO, USA, Oct 29 2024 – The conclusion that Donald Trump is a fascist has gone mainstream, gaining wide publicity and affirmation in recent weeks. Such understanding is a problem for Trump and his boosters.

At the same time, potentially pivotal in this close election, a small proportion of people who consider themselves to be progressive still assert that any differences between Trump and Kamala Harris are not significant enough to vote for Harris in swing states. Opposition to fascism has long been a guiding light in movements against racism and for social justice.

Speaking to a conference of the African National Congress in 1951, Nelson Mandela warned that “South African capitalism has developed [into] monopolism and is now reaching the final stage of monopoly capitalism gone mad, namely, fascism.”

Before Fred Hampton was murdered by local police officers colluding with the FBI in 1969, the visionary young Illinois Black Panther Party leader said: “Nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all.”

But now, for some who lay claim to being on the left, stopping fascism is not a priority. Disconnected from the magnitude of this fateful moment, the danger of a fascist president leading a fanatical movement becomes an abstraction.

One cogent critic of capitalism ended a column in mid-October this way: “Pick your poison. Destruction by corporate power or destruction by oligarchy. The end result is the same. That is what the two ruling parties offer in November. Nothing else.”

The difference between a woman’s right to an abortion vs. abortion being illegal is nothing?

“The end result is the same” — so it shouldn’t matter to us whether Trump becomes president after campaigning with a continuous barrage against immigrants, calling them “vermin,” “stone-cold killers,” and “animals,” while warning against the “bad genes” of immigrants who aren’t white, and raising bigoted alarms about immigration of “blood thirty criminals” who “prey upon innocent American citizens” and will “cut your throat”?

If “the end result is the same,” a mish-mash of ideology and fatalism can ignore the foreseeable results of a Republican Party gaining control of the federal government with a 2024 platform that pledges to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” Or getting a second Trump term after the first one allowed him to put three right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court.

Will the end result be the same if Trump fulfills his apparent threat to deploy the U.S. military against his political opponents, whom he describes as “radical left lunatics” and “the enemy from within”?

Capacities to protect civil liberties matter. So do savage Republican cuts in programs for minimal health care, nutrition and other vital aspects of a frayed social safety net. But those cuts are less likely to matter to the polemicists who will not experience the institutionalized cruelties firsthand.

Rather than being for personal absolution, voting is a tool in the political toolbox — if the goal is to avert the worst and improve the chances for constructing a future worthy of humanity.

Trump has pledged to be even more directly complicit in Israel’s mass murder of Palestinian people in Gaza than President Biden has been. No wonder, as the Washington Post reports, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has shown a clear preference for Trump in this election.” During a call this month, Trump told Netanyahu: “Do what you have to do.”

Palestinians, Muslim leaders and other activists in the swing state of Arizona issued an open letter days ago that makes a case for defeating Trump. “We know that many in our communities are resistant to vote for Kamala Harris because of the Biden administration’s complicity in the genocide,” the letter says. “We understand this sentiment.”

“Many of us have felt that way ourselves, even until very recently. Some of us have lost many family members in Gaza and Lebanon. We respect those who feel they simply can’t vote for a member of the administration that sent the bombs that may have killed their loved ones.”

The letter goes on:

As we consider the full situation carefully, however, we conclude that voting for Kamala Harris is the best option for the Palestinian cause and all of our communities. We know that some will strongly disagree. We only ask that you consider our case with an open mind and heart, respecting that we are doing what we believe is right in an awful situation where only flawed choices are available.

In our view, it is crystal clear that allowing the fascist Donald Trump to become President again would be the worst possible outcome for the Palestinian people. A Trump win would be an extreme danger to Muslims in our country, all immigrants, and the American pro-Palestine movement. It would be an existential threat to our democracy and our whole planet.

Exercising conscience in the most humane sense isn’t about feeling personal virtue. It’s about concern for impacts on the well-being of other people. It’s about collective solidarity.

The consequences of declining to help stop fascism are not confined to the individual voter. In the process, vast numbers of people can pay the price for individuals’ self-focused concept of conscience.

Last week, the insightful article “7 Strategic Axioms for the Anxious Progressive Voter” offered a forward-looking way to put this presidential election in a future context: “Vote for the candidate you want to organize against!”

Do we want to be organizing against a fascistic militaristic President Trump, with no realistic hope of changing policies . . . or against a neoliberal militaristic President Harris, with the possibility of changing policies?

For progressives, the answer should be clear.

Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback this fall with a new afterword about the Gaza war.

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’);