By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 4 2024 – On November 27, Israel, Lebanon, and a host of mediating states agreed upon a ceasefire agreement that would establish a permanent cessation of warfare between the two parties. As of December 3, there have been no reported instances of Hezbollah directing attacks toward Israel that resulted in any casualties. Despite this, there have been numerous reported violations committed by Israel, causing extensive harm to civilian lives and local infrastructure. Many parties have warned for the international community to hold Israel accountable for these violations.

The ceasefire agreement mandates both Israel and Hezbollah withdraw their forces from each other’s territories and report any and all violations of peace to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the committee of mediating nations. Israel has been given a 60-day period to retreat the entirety of its troops from southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah must withdraw its forces north of the Litani River.

According to a December 1 report released by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 578,641 internally displaced persons began moving back to their place of origin in Lebanon. It is also stated that further airstrikes and military restrictions imposed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have left many unable to return to their communities.

The Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor issued a press release on December 2, reporting that Israel had violated the terms of the agreement at least 18 times in southern Lebanon alone. As of December 1, there have been 62 reported violations committed by Israel that have targeted civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon. It’s been reported that Lebanese civilians were killed through the IDF opening fire on them and commanding drone strikes. Additionally, the IDF have issued further restrictions of movement south of the Litani River.

December 2 marked the deadliest day of hostilities in Lebanon since the ceasefire came into effect. It began when Hezbollah launched two projectiles toward Israel, responding to a series of violations committed by Israel over the past week. The attack, described as a “defensive warning strike”, landed in an open area and caused no injuries.

In a statement posted to X (formerly known as Twitter), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed plans to retaliate against Hezbollah, describing the attack as “a serious violation of the ceasefire”, adding that Israel will “respond to any violation by Hezbollah-minor or serious.”

Israeli Minister of Military Affairs Israel Katz urged Lebanon to uphold their conditions of the ceasefire. “If the ceasefire collapses, there will be no more exemption for the state of Lebanon. We will enforce the agreement with maximum impact and zero tolerance. If until now we have differentiated between Lebanon and Hezbollah, that will no longer be the case,” Katz said. He did not address Israel’s numerous reported violations.

The IDF responded by launching a series of strikes on two southern Lebanese towns, Talousa and Haris, killing at least eleven civilians and causing considerable damage to local infrastructure.

In a statement issued on X, the IDF stated that they struck Hezbollah terrorists, dozens of launchers, and terrorist infrastructure throughout Lebanon in response to several acts by Hezbollah in Lebanon that posed a threat to Israeli civilians, in violation of the understandings between Israel and Lebanon They added that the state of Israel remains allegiant to the conditions laid out in the ceasefire agreement but will continue to defend itself.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar denied Israel’s reported violations of the agreement, adding that Israel would “not accept a return to the situation as it stood [prior to the escalation of hostilities].” French Foreign Minster Jean-Noël Barrot was reported speaking to Saar over a phone call noting that it was urgent “for all sides to respect the ceasefire in Lebanon”.

Despite this, the Biden administration has expressed concern that the “fragile” ceasefire agreement might unravel due to repeated violations of the agreement. Israeli public broadcaster Kan reported that the U.S. envoy Amos Hochstein issued a warning to Israel over its ongoing violations.

An Israeli official informed news publications that Hochstein believes that Israel is enforcing the ceasefire “too aggressively”. Hochstein also reportedly expressed uncertainty over the endurance of the ceasefire, opining that the situation is dependent on how Hezbollah responds to the recent attacks.

Officials from the United States have confirmed that despite sporadic strikes from both sides of the border, they remain confident that the ceasefire agreement will not waver.

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller told reporters; “Obviously, when you have any ceasefire, you can see violations of it. Broadly speaking, it is our assessment that despite some of these incidents that we are seeing, the ceasefire is holding.” White House spokesperson John Kirby added that “there has been a dramatic reduction in the violence. The monitoring mechanism is in full force and is working”.

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 Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 – Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

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 Simone Galimberti
KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 – Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

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 CIVICUS
Dec 4 2024 –  
CIVICUS discusses threats to the security, rights and ancestral lands of Brazil’s quilombola communities with Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos, leader and activist of the Pitanga dos Palmares Quilombola community in Bahia state.

Founded by formerly enslaved Africans, quilombola communities represent a legacy of resilience and freedom. But their way of life is increasingly disrupted by harmful infrastructure projects and their members face constant threats from land grabbers and speculators. Community leaders demanding justice and reparations are met with intimidation and violence while public institutions look the other way. The National Coordination of Rural Black Quilombola Communities urges the Brazilian government to grant them protection and ensure accountability.

Wellington Gabriel de Jesus dos Santos

What are quilombola communities, and what’s the focus of their struggle?

Quilombola communities were born out of resistance to slavery. My community, Quilombo Pitanga, was founded by the descendants of those who fought for freedom when slavery was officially abolished in 1888. Even after slavery ended, the struggles continued because former slave owners and landowners continued to exploit and persecute our people.

Today, quilombola communities continue to fight for our land and culture. It’s important to us to preserve our heritage for future generations because it’s a testament to the strength of our ancestors, our survival and our resilience.

We advocate for justice and land rights through a combination of local and international strategies. We work with organisations such as the National Articulation of Quilombola Communities, which brings together quilombo leaders from across Brazil. We also hold protests, develop public awareness campaigns and work with international organisations to draw attention to our struggles.

What threats does your community face and who’s responsible?

My community faces significant threats, particularly from drug traffickers and powerful business interests. These threats became very real when my great-grandmother, María Bernadete Pacífico, was murdered by drug traffickers last year. She fought for the preservation of our culture and the wellbeing of younger generations, and I believe that’s what got her killed. She was part of a human rights protection programme, but the promised protection failed when she needed it most. My father was also murdered in 2017, during a battle against the construction of a landfill near our territory.

After my great-grandmother was killed, I haven’t been able to visit my family or enter the community. I live in constant fear, watching over the community and its heritage from afar.

Our community also faces institutional racism, reflected in the fact that the state built a prison on our land but fails to provide basic services such as schools and hospitals. We lack any public security, as a result of which some believe they can act with impunity. The prison, which was inaugurated in 2007, was supposed to be a shoe factory that would bring prosperity to the community. Suddenly, it was announced that it would be a prison, and it brought rising criminality and contamination of water resources and wetlands. Quilombo Pitanga dos Palmares hasn’t been the same since.

The bigger problem is that many quilombola communities, including ours, own valuable land. My community has a large territory, so we’ve been targeted by powerful interests that view our land as prime real estate for expansion. In 2012 we fought against the construction of an industrial road that would have cut through our land. There were large corporations involved, which made this fight particularly hard.

How do authorities respond?

The state not only turns a blind eye, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation, but it’s also complicit in these attacks because it protects the interests of big business rather than people. INEMA, the agency responsible for granting environmental licences to companies, has been investigated for corruption that has led to the approval of projects that harm communities like ours.

The authorities say they care about our safety, but the reality is different. The laws that are supposed to protect us are ignored and often the government is either unconcerned or in collusion with those causing harm.

What support do quilombola communities need?

Several issues need immediate attention, including securing our land rights, gaining access to basic services such as health and education and preserving our cultural heritage. A practical issue that needs attention is the toll we are forced to pay to enter the city, which constitutes arbitrary discrimination and isolates us from the wider community.

We are fighting the prison built on our land and the expansion of harmful companies that threaten our environment. We need more than words; we need tangible action, including stronger laws to protect us.

We need international support because local and national authorities often ignore or dismiss our struggles. Financial support is crucial, particularly for community leaders under threat. Many of us, including myself, face death threats. Our lives are far from normal and we need resources to ensure the safety of our families and communities.

United Nations human rights agencies could play a vital role in protecting our rights and securing the support we need. Unfortunately, despite local efforts to raise awareness, we often feel isolated in our struggles.

GET IN TOUCH
Instagram

SEE ALSO
Brazil: a step forward for Indigenous peoples’ rights CIVICUS Lens 20.Oct.2023
Brazil back on the green track CIVICUS Lens 21.Jul.2023
Brazil: ‘If Bolsonaro continues as president, it is a threat to the Amazon and therefore to humanity’ Interview with Daniela Silva 21.Sep.2022

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 Rebecca Iwerks and Alain Frechette
WASHINGTON DC, Dec 4 2024 – This time last year, the forestry space was abuzz with news of the big Blue Carbon deals. The deals set a staggering amount of land in Sub-Saharan Africa – 20% of the land in Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia and Zambia, 8% of Tanzania, and an undisclosed amount of land in Kenya – to be managed by a firm in the United Arab Emirates.

Without involvement of communities impacted by the projects, countries across Africa were strapped into memorandums of agreement with 30 years of commitments. Reports suggested that Blue Carbon was retaining upwards of 70% of the project revenues while impacting the livelihoods of millions. The audacious scale of the project shocked the conscience.

Carbon projects have run afoul of community land rights throughout the Global South, from Brazil to Laos to Malaysia. In many places, communities have not received revenue – or, worse, have been removed from their land – after keeping the landscapes intact for generations

One year later, among the jumble of headlines coming out of the recent UN climate change talks in Baku was the adoption of new rules intended to jumpstart the carbon credit markets.

These financial initiatives were included in the Paris Agreement on Climate Change to provide incentives for efforts that reduce carbon emissions. The new UN rules, however, have already been criticized for not providing sufficient guardrails to avoid transactions like the Blue Carbon deals from happening elsewhere.

With the new rules, it won’t be clear whether communities who have lived on and worked their territories for generations should be consulted as part of a project. If things go well, it won’t be clear that they are entitled to benefits and if things go poorly, it won’t be clear that they should be able to claim remedies.

Carbon projects have run afoul of community land rights throughout the Global South, from Brazil to Laos to Malaysia. In many places, communities have not received revenue – or, worse, have been removed from their land – after keeping the landscapes intact for generations.

The repeated headlines have impacted market confidence – volume and value have decreased for two consecutive years. Unfortunately, policy makers have yet to make changes that would reduce the risks.

Governments and companies have repeatedly asserted the important link between community land rights and better outcomes for the planet.

At the start of November, at the UN talks on biodiversity, the governments emphasized the critical importance of tenure security to protect biodiversity.

Ten days later, leaders from 12 countries joined with Indigenous leaders to stress the importance of land tenure to protect forests as part of the Forest Climate Leaders Partnership.

Governments are saying this because study after study shows that when Indigenous Peoples and local communities have clear tenure over their forest, the forest is better protected.

National legislation is murky, however. Most countries do not recognize the rights of people living on the land impacted by carbon projects.

We collaborated with experts at McGill University to study the legal frameworks of 33 countries and found only three countries recognized community-based carbon rights.

The lack of national legal guidelines for the carbon markets is alarming. More than half of the countries we studied do not have regulations for carbon trading.

Almost two-thirds have no evidence of a registry of carbon projects and, of those that do, only six have this information publicly available. Only seven have designed or implemented benefit-sharing policies that apply to carbon market projects and only four of the seven have established a minimum allocation requirement for affected communities.

Policy makers at the global level had the opportunity to fix this problem. But now, all eyes turn to national governments. Before they rush to create new carbon policies after Baku, they can make their countries a place where carbon projects are more secure by making community land rights front and center.

This is still a story that has yet to end. Just a few months ago, the Liberian National Climate Change Steering Committee (NCCSC) put a moratorium on all carbon credit projects until they have proper carbon regulations in place.

Liberia had two things going for it: strong land laws and strong organizing. Now it needs regulations to handle carbon trading.

The international carbon markets need recognition of community rights to be integrated in the national and international supporting regulations and guidance. The markets are like any other financial market – transparency, guardrails, and enforcement measures are needed to bring about confidence, and at this point, they’re needed very quickly.

Alain Frechette, PhD, is Rights, Climate & Conservation Director at Rights and Resources Initiative. Rebecca Iwerks is Director of Global Land and Environmental Justice Initiative at Namati.

By Carlos Müller
CONGO, Brazil, Dec 4 2024 – In the municipality of Congo, in the state of Paraiba, in the driest territory of Brazil’s semi-arid region, an original initiative seeks to prove it is possible to overcome several challenges concerning family farming. It is the EcoProductive Pilot Project.

This project shares  innovations that support family farming production, combat the region’s desertification process and encourage young people to stay in the territory, learning to coexist with adverse conditions through agroecology, which includes biodigesters, photovoltaic energy and technical assistance.“I bought this land for US$1,750. That was in 2006, when the national minimum wage was US$61 and at that time the Paraíba river didn’t have water all year round”: José Roberto da Silva

The municipality of Congo has an area of 333 square kilometres, 4,692 inhabitants, 37.25% of whom live in rural areas, where there are 415 farms. Its Human Development Index (HDI) is low, 0.581, ranked 116th among the 223 municipalities in the state of Paraíba, according to official data.

Its average annual rainfall is 610 millimetres (mm) per square metre, which in the four dry months of the year drops to 5 mm, and its average annual temperature is 23.7°C.

EcoProductivo is a cooperation between the Paraíba state government, the Federal University of Campina Grande, about 140 kilometres from Congo, and the Community Association of Farmers, Beekeepers and Breeders of the Tatú, Tapera, Poso Cumprido and Barro Branco Communities, which goes by the unpronounceable acronym Acapcac-Ttpcbb.

The association was founded in 2022 and has 140 members (96 families), including 34 women and 15 young people.

Procase consultant Felipe Leal talks about the genetic improvement of animals at the Community Association of Farmers, Beekeepers and Breeders of the Tatú, Tapera, Poso Cumprido and Barro Branco Communities in the state of Paraíba, northeastern Brazil. Credit: Carlos Müller / IPS

A solutions lab

What is known as the Open Air Laboratory is located in the community of Tapera, part of the village of Congo. There, a small family farm was chosen where 30 strategic actions will be carried out and shared with the other members of the association.

The farms and the location of the Ecoproductive Pilot Project were chosen by a technical committee with the participation of association representatives, according to their moderate to high risk of desertification, their socio-economic profile and the presence of the Paraíba Sustainable Rural Development Project (Procase).

Sítio Tapera, the establishment that became the headquarters of the ‘laboratory’, belongs to José Roberto da Silva and his wife Marlene.

“I was a cowboy all my life and when I decided to stop, the rancher I worked for gave me a bonus. With that money I bought this land for 10,000 reais (US$1,750). That was in 2006, when the national minimum wage was 350 reais (US$61) and at that time the Paraíba river didn’t have water all year round,” Silva told IPS.

The 29.5 hectare site is crossed by the Paraíba River, which, despite being the largest river in the state, was not perennial until recently. Its flow was normalized through one of the São Francisco river diversion canals.

The prickly pear palm, widely used northeastern Brazil to feed livestock during droughts, is grown in the EcoProductive Pilot Project in the state of Paraíba, where a species resistant to the pest known as the Cochineal is being planted. Credit: Carlos Müller / IPS

Water from the diversion

The São Francisco is the largest river entirely within the borders of Brazil and flows through several states. Work to divert between 1% and 3% of its flow began in 2007 amidst much criticism.

At a cost of US$2,450 million, the works have not been completed yet, but its two main canals, totalling 480 kilometres, in addition to making several rivers permanent, feed many dams in several states in northeastern Brazil.

The subsoil of the Northeast region contains important water tables, but they are brackish. The flow of the São Francisco represents 70% of all freshwater in the Northeast, where 28% of Brazil’s 212 million people live.

The Paraíba River, which has become a perennial river, allows farmers from the association to maintain dams in order to raise tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fish. Two were built on the site used as the headquarters of the ‘laboratory’, which received 3,500 fingerlings donated by the state government.

The water drawn from the river is also used to irrigate the new fruit trees and the prickly pear (Mauritia flexuosa) of a species resistant to the pest known as Cochineal (Dactylopius coccus).

EcoProductivo was launched in April 2023. Among its goals are the genetic improvement of 400 cows, 1,800 goats and 1,800 sheep; the installation of a solar energy generation system and a biodigester to replace the use of liquefied gas; ponds for fish farming, and the production of seedlings of various species.

It also seeks to implement sustainable soil management practices, with the aim of conserving fertility and reducing erosion, and reforest degraded areas and plant fruits compatible with the conditions of the region, such as cashew, guava and passion fruit, irrigated with solar energy.

In the first year of project implementation, in addition to the fish ponds, a biodigester, a photovoltaic energy generation system, a corral that houses animals for the improvement of the community’s herds, and nurseries for fruit seedlings and reforestation were installed at Sitio Tapera.

The total cost of the project was budgeted at US$55,087, and Felipe Leal, a consultant for Procase, told IPS about its main components: the photovoltaic system, corrals, irrigation system, excavated tanks and the weather station installed by a state government agency at a cost of more than US$21,000.

Ana Carla Ramos da Silva’s farm is building the community’s second biodigester and the benefits of genetic improvement of her goat herd are already paying off. She sells 150 litres of goat milk a week and will soon supply 190 kilos of cheese to the Brazilian government’s Food Procurement Programme. Credit: Carlos Müller / IPS

Gas of their own

The biodigester, explained Professor Rossino Almeida of the Federal University of Capina Grande, who is providing technical assistance to the project, “costs US$ 1,400. Of this, 70% is financed by public resources and 30% by the landowner, divided in 10 instalments”.

“Bottled gas is expensive and I can’t fetch firewood because I had heart surgery. Now, with the biodigester, I only used the gas from the cylinder to make food for the whole family on Mother’s Day. The last cylinder we bought was last year,” said Marlene da Silva with a satisfied smile.

According to Leal, thanks to the project’s improvements and technical assistance, José Roberto da Silva’s family has already earned the equivalent of US$5,606 this year from the sale of cassava, lettuce, sweet potatoes, and is about to sell a tonne of fish grown in their two ponds. They have also sold three litres of honey.

The loan of breeding animals, the supply of seedlings and technical assistance is already benefiting the other families of the Association, even if they have not made investments like those made in Sítio Tapera.

Each pond in the Eco-Productive Pilot Project received 3,500 fingerlings donated by the government of the state of Paraíba, in northeastern Brazil. In the first harvest, the Da Silva family, owner of Sítio Tapera, aims to sell a tonne of tilapia for just over US$3,600. Credit: Carlos Müller / IPS

Markets for increased production

On Ana Carla Ramos da Silva’s property, a second biodigester is being built. But with the genetic improvement of her goat herd, she already sells 150 litres of goat milk a week and is preparing to sell 190 kilograms of cheese, as well as expanding honey production.

One of the farmers’ main concerns was what to do to market a larger production. Procase technicians and Professor Almeida have been assisting in contacts with traders and in seeking access to public and private markets.

One of the priority channels is the Brazilian federal government’s Food Acquisition Programme (PAA), which buys products from family farming for distribution to welfare institutions.

“We finished the consultancy with a total of 15 EcoProdutivo beneficiaries enrolled in the PAA. We helped in the organisation of documentation and estimations of the products to be delivered, among other demands. It is worth noting that of 15 enrolled, 12 are women,” Leal said in a message sent to IPS.

On the day IPS learned about the experience, Sítio Tapera was also visited by a group of ninth-graders, mostly 15 years old, from the Inácio Caluete municipal school in Gurjão, a nearby municipality of about 4,500 inhabitants and even drier than Congo.

These teenagers, most of them farmers’ sons and daughters, have, in addition to their regular subjects, elective classes in the Rural Entrepreneurship Education and Sustainable Agricultural Practices Programme, which are not only theoretical. That day was dedicated to field work.

By Umar Manzoor Shah
THE HAGUE & SRINAGAR, Dec 4 2024 – At the International Court of Justice on Tuesday, December 4, 2024, Brazil called for climate justice, and Canada urged swift action on the world’s “greatest challenge,” while China advocated for equity and development rights. These countries are among the 98 that will make presentations during the fortnight of hearings, after which the court will give an advisory opinion.

The court’s forthcoming advisory opinion, expected in 2025, is seen as a critical step in delineating states’ responsibilities for addressing climate change and addressing the consequences of inaction.

The proceedings draw on international environmental law, human rights treaties, and multilateral agreements. On December 3, representatives from Brazil, Canada, and China presented their arguments emphasizing the urgency of collective action and climate justice.

Brazil’s Vision of Inclusivity Where No One is Left Behind

Representing Brazil, Luiz Alberto Figueiredo, the nation’s Ambassador for Climate Change, highlighted Brazil’s vulnerability to climate change and its leadership in global climate governance. Figueiredo underscored Brazil’s proactive measures, including a revised Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that pledges to cut emissions by up to 67 percent by 2035 relative to 2005 levels.

“Brazil has consistently championed international cooperation in addressing climate challenges. Our efforts, despite socio-economic constraints, reflect a vision of inclusivity where no one is left behind,” said Figueiredo.

He emphasized Brazil’s exposure to climate-induced disasters such as severe droughts, floods, and wildfires, disproportionately affecting marginalized groups, including Indigenous communities. Advocating for climate justice, he urged global actors to consider the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDRRC), which assigns greater responsibility to historically high-emitting nations.

Legal Arguments for Climate Equity

Brazil’s legal advisor, Professor Jorge Galindo, reinforced the CBDRRC principle as a legal mechanism for ensuring fairness in climate governance. Citing precedents from the Paris Agreement and advisory opinions from international tribunals, he called for developed nations to lead by achieving net-zero emissions sooner, investing in clean technologies, and offering financial support to developing countries.

Galindo also urged the ICJ to recognize the legal value of decisions made by the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). “COP decisions reflect genuine interpretations of treaty obligations and must guide the court’s opinion,” he said.

Galindo further stressed the importance of balancing climate policies with trade obligations, warning against the misuse of environmental measures as trade barriers. “Free trade and climate goals must coexist,” he added.

Canada committed to unified treaty-based approach

Canada’s representative, Louis Martel, described climate change as a profound threat, with the Arctic warming three times faster than the global average. Martel highlighted its cascading effects, including permafrost thaw, increased forest fires, and food insecurity for Indigenous communities.

Reaffirming Canada’s commitment to international climate instruments like the Paris Agreement, Martel emphasized the importance of collective and individual state responsibilities. He called attention to the global stocktake and enhanced transparency framework as essential mechanisms for ensuring accountability.

While supporting the “no harm” principle obligating states to prevent cross-border environmental harm, Martel expressed reservations about its consistent application to climate change under customary international law. He also questioned whether principles like “polluter pays” and “intergenerational equity” have achieved the status of binding legal norms.

“Canada remains committed to a unified treaty-based approach that strengthens global climate governance,” Martel said.

China Plea For Fair and Inclusive International Approach

China, represented by Ma Xinmin, advocated for equitable climate action, highlighting the principle of CBDRRC as fundamental to balancing responsibilities between developed and developing nations. Ma underscored the disproportionate vulnerabilities of developing countries and the necessity of recognizing their right to sustainable development.

China criticized unilateral measures by developed nations, such as trade restrictions targeting developing countries’ green industries, describing them as counterproductive to global climate goals. Instead, Ma urged collaboration that accounts for historical emissions and respects nations’ varied capacities to combat climate change.

“Addressing climate change involves not only emission reductions but also ensuring sustainable development and poverty eradication,” Ma argued. Highlighting China’s contributions, he reaffirmed the country’s commitment to climate action while calling for a fair and inclusive international approach.

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 Esther Ngumbi
URBANA, Illinois, US, Dec 4 2024 – Recently, at the UN climate conference COP29, countries agreed to do everything necessary to invest in climate solutions to protect lives and livelihoods from worsening climate change impacts and to build a prosperous world. This is necessary. Indeed, every effort must be made by our leaders to protect lives and livelihoods.

One of the best investments possible is in agricultural climate solutions. In particular, investments in solutions that seek to protect soils and agricultural crops that we depend upon to meet food security.

Otherwise, these soils and crops are vulnerable to the effects of climate change in the form of droughts, flooding, pest outbreaks, and elevated temperatures.

Although it is a daunting task, protecting livelihoods and agricultural crops from the detrimental impacts of climate change is achievable.

Adopting regenerative practices has been documented to bring multiple benefits including building soil health and quality, improving biodiversity, all while helping to mitigate the effects of climate change

Preventing crop failures and cascading impacts including food insecurity, hunger, and famines can be achieved by rolling out and adopting multiple climate solution strategies ranging from the use of microbial solutions and beneficial soil microbes and the adoption of regenerative agricultural practices and integrated pest management strategies.

Microbial solutions, including soil microbial inoculants, leverage beneficial soil microbes and natural soil microbiome capabilities to create fertile and resilient environments for agricultural plants, including processes like suppression of soil pathogens, fixing soil nitrogen and making other important plant nutrients such as phosphorus available.

Accumulating evidence has revealed that beneficial soil microbes can deliver many benefits including improving the growth and yields of agricultural crops like maize, tomatoes and wheat that are important for meeting food security needs.

Additionally, these microbes have been shown to shield agricultural crop plants from drought and enhance crops’ ability to tolerate elevated temperatures, salinity, insects and many other stressors associated with climate change. Beneficial soil microbes are critical in mitigating the effects of climate-change associated stressors.

Regenerative agricultural practices are a set of rejuvenating farming and agricultural sustainable practices that seek to boost soil health, water resources, soil organic carbon sequestration and soils biological diversity.

These sustainable practices include cover cropping, crop rotation, planting diverse crops, minimizing soil disturbance, using less fertilizers, agricultural inputs and chemical pesticides and incorporating livestock.

Adopting regenerative practices has been documented to bring multiple benefits including building soil health and quality, improving biodiversity, all while helping to mitigate the effects of climate change. For example, research has revealed that cover crops can improve soil health and increase the abundance of beneficial insect communities.

Integrated pest management is an approach that doesn’t rule out the use of pesticides, but uses them as little as possible and only for strong reasons.

It promotes the use of safer alternatives, like biocontrol, which uses natural enemies to control pests, and cultural control practices which modify the growing environment to reduce unwanted pests.

Integrated pest management approaches include the use of resistant plant varieties that have been bred to resist insect damage, and crop rotation which changes the crops planted every season or year, to break the life-cycle of insect pests and discourage pests from staying on the farm.

Ultimately, strategies being released to help deal with the climate crisis must fundamentally pay attention to improving soil and its health. Soil is the basis of healthy and nutritious food, income and economy.

Initiatives rolled out to build soil health must be rooted in science and adhere to the several science-based soil health building principles and practices including mulching, conservation agriculture, reduced tillage and cover cropping.

Smart investments in the soil must be based on a scientific assessment of the state of the soil, making soil testing initiatives a good place to start. Knowing what soils need allows for precise interventions and is a win for climate resillience and environmental protection.

Building soil health will build back life-giving soil nutrients, diverse soil microbial communities and soil organic matter. Soil organic matter is associated with other benefits, such as improvements to plant health and yields; increased soil water retention, which increases the ability of crops to tolerate drought; and expansion of biological diversity within the soil.

Diverse biological organisms in soils turn play critical roles in soil ecosystems, including decomposition, breaking down pollutants, and cycling essential plant nutrients., life-giving nutrients, and diverse soil microbial communities, and in turn boost climate resillience.

Importantly, as we roll out these initiatives, we must remember that the ability of communities and citizens of different countries to adapt and employ these strategies will vary enormously, depending on financial capabilities.

Financial investments to support rolling out of these agricultural climate solutions and practices can be channeled through governments departments and ministry of agriculture.

Protecting lives, livelihoods, and agricultural crops from the catastrophic impacts of climate change is an urgent task that will require the rolling out of multiple initiatives-from regenerative farming practices to using microbial inoculants and adopting integrated pest management strategies. We must continue to encourage countries to invest in these initiatives. It is a win- win.

Esther Ngumbi, PhD is Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology, African American Studies Department, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign