By Deodat Maharaj
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2024 – The Paris Agreement on climate change is a decade old this month. While there has been progress – with new net zero pledges and new technological solutions, we are still grappling with the reality that global temperatures continue to soar. 2023 was the hottest year ever on record.

This alarming trend poses grave consequences for the world’s 45 Least Developed Countries (LDCs). These countries bear the brunt of the burden from the climate crisis even though they are the lowest carbon emitters on the planet. According to the World Bank, over the last decade, the world’s poorest countries have been hit by nearly eight times as many natural disasters, compared with three decades ago, resulting in a three-fold increase in economic damage.

Changing weather patterns, increasing droughts, flooding, crop failures, deforestation and sea level rise matter hugely to LDCs, which are largely agricultural economies. When climate change threatens farming productivity, the overall outlook for the people in these poor countries becomes even bleaker.

Policymakers meeting in Azerbaijan later this month for the United Nations Climate Change Summit (COP 29) urgently need to deliver on the financial, technical, and capacity building support that LDCs need to address the climate crisis. There is precious little time left.

Delivering results in these core areas with financing could make a difference:

Scale up early warning systems

Firstly, we need to scale up early warning systems linked to satellites and weather stations that can help forecast severe weather events such as cyclones, flooding, and droughts. Despite evidence that getting clear information on time can save both lives and livelihoods, the current capacity for monitoring and forecasting across Africa is low and in need of investment.

Early warning systems also need engagement from communities for communication and coordination and the technical training of local stakeholders to maintain and monitor them. In Fatick, in Senegal, for example, early results of a collaborative pilot project to forecast extreme heat show increased awareness and behaviour changes among the community and improved preparedness by the local health system.

Leverage cutting edge technology

Secondly, we need to leverage technology such as boosting access to climate modelling powered by artificial intelligence and big data analytics. This can provide important insights into long-term climate trends, identify patterns, and predict future changes. CLIMTAG-Africa, which is part of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, currently offers climate information for three African countries: Malawi, Mozambique, and Zambia with plans to expand it further.

The tool provides users with accessible climate information to support decisions about what crops to plant and when to plant them – vital to economies where small-scale subsistence farming is the norm. Similarly, it is about replicating and coming up with cost-efficient and relevant impact technological solutions in agriculture so salt-water resistant strains of rice can be planted in countries affected by sea level rise such as The Gambia.

Provide real-time weather data

Thirdly, we need to invest in low-cost, high impact innovations to provide real-time weather data and advice that can be readily shared. In Mali, the ‘MaliCrop’ App has become an essential resource for farmers in this drought-affected country. By accessing the app, farmers can receive forecasts and information in French and several local languages about weather predictions and even crop disease risks.

The project is used regularly by over 110,000 people. However, although mobile phone penetration is increasing in low-income countries, mobile infrastructure, and internet connectivity, particularly in rural areas, is lagging behind and is a barrier to access.

These are promising examples which will only have an impact if properly scaled up and supported. However, acutely limited access to finance remains a major obstacle especially for the LDCs. According to the 2023 UNFCCC Adaptation Finance Gap Update, the costs of adaptation for LDCs is estimated at US$ 25bn per year – or 2 per cent of their GDP. Actual financing to these already fiscally constrained and largely highly indebted countries falls woefully short of what is needed.

A decade ago, COP 21 in Paris offered LDCs much hope. Since then, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries are no better off in terms of financing. However, advancements in technology, including AI, provide a glimmer of hope. To deliver results for LDCs, COP 29 must commit to more funding, scaled-up technology transfer, strengthened partnerships and relentless capacity-building.

The people in the poorest and most vulnerable countries cannot continue to absorb the hits wrought by the developed world’s carbon emissions. The choice is clear, agreement on an action agenda for LDCs or a COP-out where everyone loses.

Deodat Maharaj is the Managing Director, United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries and can be reached at: deodat.maharaj@un.org

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 Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2024 – When the United Nations imposes sanctions or penalizes a member state – be it the General Assembly or the Human Rights Council – the resolutions are “non-binding” and often remain unimplemented.

But the Security Council resolutions are “binding” – and still openly violated by countries such as North Korea—because all these UN bodies have no means of implementing these resolutions, nor a standing army to forcibly enforce them. But they only carry moral weight.

The Council can also impose its own sanctions, mostly in economic, financial and trade sectors, against violators of its decisions.

And last week there was a move to impose arms sanctions against Israel – and rightly so, judging by the 43,000 plus, mostly Palestinian civilians, killed in Gaza largely with US-supplied weapons since October last year.

But how effective will this be since the strongest opposition will come from the US, an unyielding supporter of Israel, which will unhesitatingly use its veto power if the resolution comes before the Security Council?

Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, a former UN Under-Secretary-General and one-time Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations, told IPS anything short of a real, permanent ceasefire would not create a pathway to end the perpetration of the ongoing genocidal aggression by Israel.

In this context, he said, the joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel, signed by 52 countries and two UN-recognized multilateral organizations, is meaningfully forward-looking, and contains a purposeful objective of contributing to that “pathway”.

In fact, the Foreign Minister of Turkiye, whose country initiated the letter, asserted that “We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide.”

“It would be argued rightfully that the United Nations and its apex body, the General Assembly have no powers to enforce such an arms embargo. The Security Council, the sole UN entity which can authorize an arms embargo and obligate the arms suppliers desist from sending arms to the areas of conflict, also becomes powerless if one of the P-5 uses the notorious veto”.

“However, I strongly believe that a General Assembly resolution following the call for the arms embargo to Israel would have a moral value which has its own merit. Despite the politics and power-play which is destroying the UN’s credibility and marginalizing its operational capacity to resolve conflicts, the arms embargo would highlight the principled position taken by the UN,” said Ambassador Chowdhury.

In a way, he pointed out, that would strengthen the Secretary-General’s efforts to promote the much-needed ceasefire.

In the aftermath of Israel’s declaration of the Secretary General as persona non-grata (PNG) and its extension of the attacks on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the General Assembly needs to show that its moral and normative role as envisaged in the UN Charter has not been cowed down by the politics of the frequently-used threat of veto, he declared.

Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the Security Council, told IPS: “This initiative reflects the view of the vast majority of the world’s governments and peoples and is consistent with imperatives of international humanitarian law, but given that the major arms supplier of Israel is a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, it is unlikely to have much of an impact.”

Also problematic, he pointed out, is that some of the countries sponsoring the initiative, such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, have been guilty not only of similarly providing weapons to those engaging in war crimes but engaging in war crimes themselves.

Turkiye’s foreign minister Hakan Fidan said last week his country had submitted a letter to the United Nations, signed by 52 countries and two inter-governmental organizations, calling for a halt in arms deliveries to Israel.

“We have written a joint letter calling on all countries to stop the sale of arms and ammunition to Israel. We delivered this letter, which has 54 signatories, to the UN on November 1,” said Fidan, according to the Times of Israel.

“We must repeat at every opportunity that selling arms to Israel means participating in its genocide,” said Fidan, adding that the letter is “an initiative launched by Turkiye.”

Among the signatories were Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Algeria, China, Iran and Russia, plus the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC),

Elaborating further, Ambassador Chowdhury said the UN should not forget that the UN’s International Court of Justice which determined that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank is illegal under international law. The judgment was followed by a General Assembly resolution last September, demanding Israel leave the occupied territories within a year.

“I am encouraged by the UN’s own 45 Human Rights Experts and Special Rapporteurs, who, driven by their conscience, forcefully called for a ‘permanent ceasefire, … an ‘arms embargo on all warring parties,’ and ‘the deployment of an international protective presence in the occupied Palestinian territory under the supervision of the UN.’ All these well-thought-out measures would only promote dialogue and diplomacy over death and destruction”.

The UN Secretary-General needs to endorse and welcome this call by his in-house experts and recommend to the General Assembly to do the same without any delay, he declared.

Back in April 2024, in a resolution adopted by 28 votes in favour, six against and 13 abstentions, the 47-member Human Rights Council backed a call “to cease the sale, transfer and diversion of arms, munitions and other military equipment to Israel, the occupying Power…to prevent further violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights”.

Presented by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, delegates heard that the resolution had also been motivated by the need to stop “egregious” human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Co-sponsors of the text included Bolivia, Cuba and the State of Palestine, ahead of the vote which saw support from more than two dozen countries including Brazil, China, Luxembourg, Malaysia and South Africa, according to UN News.

Unlike the UN Security Council, Human Rights Council resolutions are not legally binding on States but carry significant moral weight, and in this instance is intended to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel as well as potentially influence national policy decisions.

Israel’s two largest arms sources, the United States and Germany, have resisted calls for an embargo on Israel, though each has been accused of withholding certain arms during the war.

In an October 2024 report, the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI) said in the past decade, Israel has greatly increased its imports of arms. SIPRI estimates that in the five-year period 2019–23, Israel was the world’s 15th largest importer of major arms, accounting for 2.1 per cent of global arms imports in the period. In 2009–13 it ranked only 47th.

Although only three countries supplied major arms to Israel in 2019–23, the United States, Germany and Italy, many others supplied military components, ammunition or services. The three other global major arms exporters among the top 10: the United Kingdom, France and Spain.

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’);