By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30 2025 – On January 19, Israel and Hamas implemented a three-phase ceasefire agreement that seeks to end the war between Israel and Palestine, facilitate the exchange of prisoners and hostages between the two nations, and begin a period of reconstruction in the Gaza Strip. Since the ceasefire took effect, humanitarian organizations have struggled to assist hordes of displaced Palestinians as they made their treacherous returns back home. Insecurity has reached new peaks as Gazans struggle to cope with inadequate levels of humanitarian aid and the dangers of unexploded ordnance. Furthermore, the Israeli Knesset’s ban on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) is set to greatly exacerbate living conditions and access to aid.

The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) released a situational report on January 28 that detailed the current conditions in Gaza. It is estimated that since the ceasefire took effect, approximately 376,000 displaced people have safely returned to northern Gaza. Additionally, as of January 27, Israeli forces have evacuated the Netzarim corridor, which served as their main zone of occupation during the war.

The flow of humanitarian aid has significantly improved since the implementation of the ceasefire. Improved access conditions have allowed aid personnel to reach struggling Gazans and provide larger quantities of life-saving supplies. In a social media post shared to X (formerly known as Twitter), Corinne Fleischer, the World Food Programme’s (WFP) Regional Director for the Middle East, North Africa, and Eastern Europe, stated that from January 20-24, the WFP had delivered more food to Gaza than in all of December 2024. WFP has also facilitated the operations of over 13 bakeries in Gaza, which were on the verge of shutting down in late December. These bakeries are now able to continue distributing free bread to civilians.

Additionally, the World Health Organization (WHO) delivered 70,000 litres of fuel to Gaza City, enabling 20 partially functional health facilities and ambulances to continue services. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) have facilitated the operation of multiple sewage pumps and water wells in northern Gaza. This is expected to provide immense relief following the complete collapse of water and sanitation systems in northern Gaza last year.

The UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS) also indicated that they have delivered nearly three million liters of fuel in Gaza, stating that the current supply of humanitarian aid delivered to the enclave marks a “ten-fold increase” from the deliveries pre-ceasefire. UNRWA has reported that they have supplied approximately 550,000 people with food parcels in the past few days, in addition to 370 pallets of essential medications. UNRWA-supported health facilities in Deir al-Balah, Nuseirat, and Al Mawasi and the Beach Health Centre in Gaza governorate have also resumed operations.

A key priority for humanitarian organizations has been the clearance of remnants from the war, including unexploded ordnance and rubble, which pose significant risks to the civilians of Gaza. According to a preliminary assessment from UN-Habitat and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), there are approximately 50,773,496 tonnes of debris in Gaza, which is 17 times more than the sum of debris generated by armed conflict in the enclave since 2008. On average, there are roughly 65 kilograms of debris for each square kilometre. UNEP also estimates that clearance efforts will take 20 years and cost nearly 909 million dollars.

“The level of destruction in the Gaza Strip is without precedent. We are dealing literally with a situation where most Gazans will return to either a heavily damaged building they cannot move back into or simply a pile of rubble … But that rubble is still dangerous. Not only are there potentially bodies that have never been evacuated from there, there are also unexploded ordnance, landmines. It’s a highly toxic environment,” said Achim Steiner, the chief of the UN Development Programme (UNDP).

On January 30, the Israeli Knesset’s ban on UNRWA is set to come into effect. The ban would prevent the agency from entering any access points in Gaza and the West Bank, which would essentially impede any relief missions conducted by the agency. UNRWA has been on the frontlines of this humanitarian crisis since the 1948 Palestinian War. The agency has provided over 300,000 Palestinian children with free primary or secondary education and 1.2 million Gazans with access to healthcare services. Overall, UNRWA has been the biggest provider of humanitarian services in Gaza.

“The ban would cripple the humanitarian response in Gaza and deprive millions of Palestine refugees of essential services in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. They would also eliminate a vocal witness to the countless horrors and injustices Palestinians have endured for decades,” said Philippe Lazzarini, the Commissioner-General of UNRWA. Lazzarini added that the ban on UNRWA will “undermine” the ceasefire and “sabotage Gaza’s recovery and political transition”.

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 Frederic Mousseau
OAKLAND, California, USA, Jan 30 2025 – The fresh offensive by the M23 rebels and Rwanda forces in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) coincides with the first anniversary of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between the European Union (EU) and Rwanda to cooperate on the supply of “critical minerals.”

The agreement could not be more appalling given its total disregard of Rwanda’s role in driving the violent conflict raging in Eastern DRC for the last thirty years, either directly through its own forces, or by supporting armed groups to fight on its behalf. The consequence has been deaths of millions, along with massive displacement and immense suffering for the Congolese.

President Paul Kagame of Rwanda justifies the war, citing concerns for peace and security for the Tutsi ethnic group, target of the 1994 genocide. It is, however, Rwanda’s illicit extraction of eastern Congo’s highly lucrative minerals including gold and the world’s largest reserves of cobalt (used in batteries) and coltan (used in modern technological devices), that is fueling this devastation.

Rwanda’s support of the rebel group M23 has allowed it to take over much of eastern Congo, capture many mines, and perpetrate massacres and egregious human rights abuses.

Internally displaced persons (IDP) in the camp in Roe, in the territory of Djugu, February 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe

While it is wrong and immoral for the EU to strike a deal with a country responsible for so much suffering, the very terms of the February 2024 agreement make it worse as they overlook the role of Rwanda in illicit extraction.

Over the past decade, Rwanda has exported far higher quantities of coltan than its own mines produce. It is estimated that up to 90 percent of Rwanda’s coltan exports are illegally sourced from eastern DRC, through what the NGO Global Witness has dubbed as a massive “laundromat.”

Yet, the European bureaucrats who worded the agreement stated that “[Rwanda] is a major player on the world’s tantalum extraction. It also produces tin, tungsten, gold and niobium, and has potential for lithium and rare earth elements.

In addition, Rwanda with its favorable investment climate and rule of law can become a hub for value addition in the mineral sector. One gold refinery already exists, while a tantalum refinery will soon be operational.”

The EU – like the US – has legislation in place that is supposed to prevent the use of conflict minerals from DRC but the MOU’s more than favorable terms to describe Rwanda and its business climate suggest a deliberate choice not to enforce European laws despite the country’s well documented egregious records.

Losing hope with Western regulators, last month, DRC filed criminal complaints against subsidiaries of Apple in France and Belgium, accusing the tech firm of using conflict minerals in its supply chain. Lawyers for the DRC government claim that Apple is responsible for “covering up war crimes and the laundering of tainted minerals, handling stolen goods, and carrying out deceptive commercial practices to assure consumers supply chains are clean.”

This complaint speaks to the blatant failure of the traceability schemes that have supposedly been put in place to address the issue of “conflict minerals.” Since 2010, the International Tin Supply Chain Initiative is supposed to ensure upstream traceability in the African Great Lakes Region. It operates at over 2,000 mines and has been endorsed by the Responsible Minerals Initiative and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Unfortunately, instead of restricting the entry of conflict minerals into global supply chains, the scheme has been used to illegally launder conflict-minerals from DRC or smuggled into neighboring countries. This has allowed illegally tagged minerals to ultimately end up in the products of brands such as Apple, Intel, Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, and Tesla.

The horrors unleashed due to conflict minerals in Eastern DRC are well known to governments, corporations and their shareholders. For years, the United Nations has sounded the alarm over Rwanda’s continued assistance to the M23, documenting the direct involvement of its armed forces in the conflict and the supply of weapons and ammunitions to the rebels.

Yet, Western countries remain long-time supporters. From 2001 to 2022, the US alone provided over US$3.9 billion in economic aid to Rwanda and waited until October 2023 to place Rwanda on a blacklist for military aid for violating the Child Soldiers Prevention Act due to Rwandan support for M23, which recruits child soldiers.

The UK has been hesitant to criticize Rwanda, let alone cut off military aid, as it was negotiating a migrant deportation pact with the country. While France and the EU have publicly denounced Rwanda, neither have cut off military aid, and continue cooperation as demonstrated by the critical minerals deal.

In a March 2023 press conference with President Tshisekedi, when asked if France would pursue sanctions against Rwanda, President Macron’s response blamed the Congolese government for country’s instability.

In addition to the violence, the on-going war and exploitation of DRC’s mineral resources has a dire impact on the country’s economy, draining its financial resources and preventing revenue from mineral extraction to reach its coffers. Poverty and hunger are widespread whereas access to basic services such as health and education are greatly underfunded.

The situation of countries not benefiting economically from their own natural resources has been labelled as a “resource curse.” However, looking at the forces driving and profiteering from the exploitation and violence, it is not the curse but rather the greed and cynical attitude of governments and corporate actors that is responsible.

On January 25, 2025, the EU said that “Rwanda must cease its support for the M23 and withdraw,” and warned that it “will consider all the tools at its disposal in order to hold accountable those responsible for sustaining armed conflict, instability and insecurity in the DRC.” Sanctions on Rwanda are obviously long overdue.

An easy first step for European countries will be to end the agreement that should have never been signed in the first place. The next step must be enforcement of conflict minerals regulations and laws they have conveniently failed to apply so far.

Frederic Mousseau is Policy Director, The Oakland Institute

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, Jan 30 2025 – The Trump administration which regained the White House last week after a four-year hiatus, has come down heavily on thousands of illegal immigrants and hundreds of perceived enemies– triggering a rash of executive orders on military and federal agencies

But in the ensuing political chaos, Trump has not spared the United Nations either.

The world body is expected to be blindsided and visibly undermined as it faces several threats, including cuts in US funding, withdrawal from UN agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), and possibly from the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), plus the abandoning of international treaties such as the Climate Change Treaty.

Meanwhile, the US House Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik of New York, the incoming US Ambassador to the UN, was quoted as saying: “In the UN, Americans see a corrupt, defunct, and paralyzed institution more beholden to bureaucracy, process, and diplomatic niceties than the founding principles of peace, security, and international cooperation laid out in its charter”.

She has also pledged to withdraw support from the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA).

As a result, the United Nations is expected to face an exceptionally hostile White House during the next four years– even while the US still remains in arrears of its financial dues to the UN.

Asked about faltering US funding, UN Deputy Spokesperson Farhan Haq said the United States owes $1.5 billion to the regular budget of the UN.

And then, between the regular budget, the peacekeeping budget, and international tribunals, the total amount the US owes is $2.8 billion.

Asked whether the UN can get this money under the Trump administration, he said: “We have gotten the money for UN expenses under all of the various administrations in the past”.

Joseph Chamie, a consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division, told IPS it is evident to nearly all observers that the Trump administration aims to reshape US-UN relations.

President Trump and his colleagues, he pointed out, can be expected to push for reform and use US funding in their attempts to achieve their desired goals. The reform goals of the Trump administration should be expected to be striking shifts from the previous US administration.

“President Trump can be expected to act more rapidly and aggressively than he did during his first presidential term.”

Regarding multilateral cooperation, he said, it will likely occur only when it is perceived as aligning with the interests of the Trump administration.

“Regarding the Trump administration’s comments, observations and official statements, I recommend that they heed the words of John Adams, the second president of the United States.”

He astutely remarked: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

In brief, the facts, evidence and realities regarding the United Nations system and its operations cannot be altered by the wishes of the Trump administration, declared Chamie.

Dr. Stephen Zunes, Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, who has written extensively on the politics of the UN, told IPS, a Trump administration will present unprecedented challenges to the United Nations and the international legal norms it is supposed to uphold.

“No leader of a major power since the UN’s founding in 1945 has expressed such disdain for fundamental principles of international law.”

It should be remembered, though, that the United States was already undermining such principles under previous administrations, he pointed out.

For example, even under (former US President Joe) Biden, the United States recognized Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights and Morocco’s illegal annexation of Western Sahara, both seized by military force in contravention to unanimous UN Security Council resolutions.

Hostility towards UN agencies isn’t new either, said Dr Zunes.

Biden, with the support of a large bipartisan majority of Congress, eliminated U.S. funding for UNRWA. Previous administrations have withdrawn the United States from UNHRC and UNESCO and have threatened to withdraw funding from any UN agency which would admit the State of Palestine as a member.

“In addition, during the past 55 years, the United States has vetoed far more UN Security Council resolutions than any other country”.

The difference between Trump and previous presidents is the flagrancy of his opposition to the entire United Nations system and idea of any legal restraints on the actions of the United States or its allies.

Despite frequent double-standards, previous U.S. administrations at least gave lip service to what Biden referred to as the “rules-based international order.” Not Trump, however.

Given Trump’s disdain for domestic law–having been indicted for 78 felonies and thus far convicted of 34–it is not surprising that he would have so little regard for international law as well, declared Dr Zunes.

Asked about a letter from the United States concerning the Paris Climate Agreement, UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said the US has notified the Secretary-General, in his capacity as depositary, of its withdrawal, on 27 January of this year, from the Paris Agreement which as you will recall was agreed to on 12 December 2015.

The United States had signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016 and expressed its consent to be bound by the Agreement by acceptance on 3 September 2016. It then withdrew from the Agreement effective on 4 November 2020, before accepting it again on 19 February 2021.

According to Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Paris Agreement, the withdrawal of the United States will take effect on 27 January 2026.

“We reaffirm our commitment to the Paris Agreement and to support all effective efforts to limit the rise in global temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius,” said Dujarric.

Asked about the sharp criticism of the UN at last week’s confirmation hearings for the next US ambassador to the United Nations, Haq told reporters: “I wouldn’t go into any sort of thing like a point-by-point rebuttal, but obviously it’s clear the work that the United Nations and its agencies do.”

“It’s clear the importance we have in a variety of fields, whether we’re talking about peacekeeping efforts around the world, whether we’re talking about humanitarian aid, whether we’re talking about the economic assistance that UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) and other entities provide; whether you’re talking about support for the environment, support for population planning”.

There’s a world of activities, he pointed out, that are promoted by the United Nations, and “underlying it all is the core fact that what the United Nations has succeeded most at, is making sure that all of the nations of the world have a reliable, peaceful venue where they can negotiate with each other and deal with all potential conflicts, all potential cross-cutting issues collectively.”

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 Felix Dodds and Chris Spence
SAN FRANCISCO, California / APEX, North Carolina, Jan 30 2025 – When it comes to climate change, the awful news has been coming thick and fast. We now know that in 2024, the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for the first time.

Extreme weather seems to be multiplying, with shocking fires in Los Angeles and storms striking Europe and America’s east coast since the start of the year. U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his country will turn its back on the ambitious Paris Agreement adopted in 2015.

Meanwhile, the United Nations’ latest annual summit—COP29 in Azerbaijan—ended in November with complaints it had done too little to change the narrative. Some even questioned whether the UN’s ongoing exertions were a waste of time, and whether annual global climate summits were still worth doing?

Are things really so bad? Let’s break down the news piece-by-piece and look at each issue in turn.

How bad is it that we have broken the 1.5C ceiling?

It’s pretty bad. It means we can expect extreme weather like heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, and flooding to increase in frequency and severity. It’s also going to affect food production, harm many plant and animal species, and risk sending the world over several “tipping points”, such as faster melting of ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, causing sea-level rise. If you don’t like that our weather is getting more extreme, then sadly it’s too late. We’ll all have to get used to it, and adapt accordingly.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive

That said, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are some silver linings. First, the world has actually been doing a lot to fight back. Partly prompted by major international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries have been actively finding ways to reduce emissions, such as investing in green technologies and working on new policies that affect pretty much everything we do.

Whether it’s new energy efficiency programmes in our homes and offices, efforts to protect our forests, or the rise in hybrid and electric vehicles, a lot is happening. Perhaps the biggest transformation has been the growth of solar and wind power, which is now considerably cheaper and more efficient that earlier sources of electricity like coal or natural gas. The pay-off is clear, with countries like the UK, Sweden, and Denmark already cutting their greenhouse gas emissions in half since the 1990s.

Another silver lining of our efforts to cut emissions is expert projections for temperature rise in the longer term. Before the Paris Agreement, some were predicting temperatures to go up by 4-6C by 2100, which would be catastrophic for humanity and the planet; an extinction event for modern civilization. Now, the estimates sit around 2-2.8C, depending on whether countries honour the goals they’ve set themselves. These numbers are still bad, but nowhere near as terrifying as they were.

So yes, 1.5 is bad and we will need to redouble our efforts to make sure it doesn’t get much worse. But we shouldn’t give up hope just yet.

What does President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Agreement mean?

No one can deny that U.S. leadership greatly helps our global efforts to combat climate change.

Still, there are several reasons why we shouldn’t panic. First, as mentioned above, the world is already on a long-term path to cut emissions. The new U.S. administration may wish to “drill, baby, drill,” but renewables will continue to rise. Why? Because they’re cheaper than the alternatives. As an experienced business leader, President Trump knows as well as anyone that companies are motivated by profits. They will look for the most cost-effective energy option. In many cases, this will mean renewable energy.

Secondly, even if the U.S. does leave Paris and change its domestic policies, there is an inertia in systems. The outgoing Biden administration, which had pledged $3 billion for the UN’s Green Climate Fund (GCF), has already handed over $2 billion. They’ve also spent much larger amounts on supporting the U.S. transition to a green economy. This is money the new President will not be able to take back. Plus, a country as big and powerful as America can’t turn its entire economy around overnight. For instance, during President Trump’s first term, emissions in the U.S. continued to fall, even if he himself did not support this.

Thirdly, even American presidents aren’t all powerful. There are many other interests and alternative viewpoints in the U.S. Others who might disagree with President Trump will likely step up and try to fill the gap. For instance, business leader Michael Bloomberg has just announced that he will help cover U.S. financial obligations to the UN and its climate work. There is precedent for this, too. Back in the 2000s, a lot of progress was made on climate change at the state and city level throughout the U.S., even though President George W. Bush generally didn’t support it.

Finally, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity when it comes to climate change. The U.S. remains important, but on climate change it matters less than it once did. Under Presidents Obama, Biden, and Trump himself, U.S. emissions have fallen. They now represent about 11% of the global total, down from 30% in 1970. These days, U.S. emissions are dwarfed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These are the countries whose leadership will be needed in the decade to come.

There are signs that big corporate players are also turning away from their climate pledges. For instance, Blackrock just left the Net Zero Asset Managers coalition. What does this mean?

The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) was announced at COP26 in 2021. It brings together corporate leaders from the financial services sector to support the transition to an ambitious “net-zero” emissions economy. However, after the recent U.S. election, some big U.S. banks left the Net Zero Banking Alliance, which is part of GFANZ. Now, Blackrock has left a similar coalition for asset managers; which is also a part of GFANZ.

This is not good news. It probably marks a symbolic victory for politicians who had been pressuring big corporate interests to step back from their climate pledges. In some ways, it mirrors the recent abandonment by several big American companies of their DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programmes.

At this stage, it is hard to know how much of a genuine impact this will have. For every company trying to appease the Trump administration by backtracking, it is likely there will also be those—like insurance companies—whose profits are being so badly impacted by climate change that they will be unlikely to change their positions.

The latest UN climate summit brought no major breakthroughs but it did achieve some modest successes. Credit: Shutterstock.

Was COP29 really a failure?

No. Although the latest annual UN climate summit didn’t result in any big breakthroughs, it did achieve some modest successes. For instance, wealthy industrialized nations agreed to increase annual funding for developing countries from US$100 billion to US$300 billion annually by 2030. This is far less than the US$1.3 trillion many experts believe is needed to combat climate change, though that number was included as a goal for 2035. Although US$300 billion is an improvement on the previous amount, it’s not what developing countries were hoping for, which was closer to $500 billion by 2030.

Other outcomes from COP29 include agreement on standards for carbon markets, which means carbon trading is likely to increase and new finances might flow to the Global South. What’s more, several countries announced that they would strengthen their pledges—known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—under the Paris Agreement. These included Azerbaijan, Brazil, the UK, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Shouldn’t COP29 have done a lot more, given the urgency of the climate crisis? As we have noted in an earlier article for IPS (“Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?”), the UN climate process is designed to help us make incremental progress, year after year, decade after decade.

And it has. It may seem like the pace of change is too slow—and it often is—but the UN has kept the ball moving over many, many years, and can take credit for helping us forward much more than we realize.

Isn’t Azerbaijan an oil producer? Why hold meetings on climate change in fossil fuel states?

Yes, it is. In fact, many countries that have hosted the annual UN climate summit in the past have also been fossil fuel states. These include the UAE, UK, Poland, South Africa, India, and Indonesia. In fact, Poland (a major coal producer), has hosted the climate COPs three times!

Why is this? The hosting of the COPs is decided by the relevant regional groupings of the UN. So, each region gets its turn every few years to decide who hosts.

The fact is, many countries produce fossil fuels, and often these are the ones with the financial and organizational capacity to host large events like a UN summit. As we have argued in the past (“Global Cooperation on Climate Change: What Have We Achieved and What Needs to Happen Next?”), we believe hosts should be judged not on their fossil fuel status, but on whether the annual COP they host is a success.

If we judge the hosts by what the UN summits achieve, then fossil fuel countries have a mixed record. COP29 was not a breakout success, but the recent COPs in Egypt and the UAE achieved a surprising breakthrough, with agreement on a loss and damage fund. Also, some of these fossil fuel producers are slowly transitioning their economies away from selling oil, coal and gas. Azerbaijan, for instance, is promoting its tourism sector.

Are UN climate COPs still worth holding? Do they need to change?

As mentioned above, we believe UN climate summits are worth it, as they have helped the world make significant progress over the past thirty years. That said, some people think the COPs need to change how they operate. For instance, there were 65,000 people at COP29, but only a few thousand were actually involved in the UN negotiations. Isn’t this a sign something needs to be done differently?

We think the critics miss the point. While it’s true that the UN climate COPs have become large and unwieldy, they also serve many purposes. First, the world pays attention to these mega-events, which ratchet up the political pressure. Prime ministers, presidents, and other world leaders often attend, knowing the eyes of the world are on them. This, too, raises expectations and sometimes leads to better outcomes.

Not only that, but the COPs are often teeming with other folks from every sector and country, all eager to talk about what they are doing, listen to others, and build networks, coalitions, and alliances. Sometimes, these lead to powerful “coalitions of the willing”. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) mentioned earlier is an example of this, as is the Global Methane Pledge, a coalition uniting 159 participating countries (and the European Commission) in pursuit of a goal to cut methane emissions 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.

On other occasions, participants can generate new ideas that eventually end up in the formal UN negotiations. Recent examples include discussions on agriculture and water management. Currently, it appears as if climate change in the context of oceans and human health may soon be added to the formal discussions.

Of course, the climate COPs could certainly be improved. For instance, the number of formal agenda items could be reduced, since the negotiations are now very complex. However, the UN COPs continue to serve an important function and should, in our opinion, include a wide range of stakeholders.

Moisés Savian, Brazil’s Secretary of Land Governance, Territorial and Socio Environmental Development at COP29. He looks forward to COP30 which will be held in his country. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

The next COP is taking place in Belém, Brazil in November 2025. What’s on the agenda, and what needs to happen before then?

The road to COP30 in Brazil lies through Bonn, Germany, which is the location for the annual preparatory meeting each June. UN climate watchers will be paying close attention to the two-week session in Bonn to see if we are on track to make any breakthroughs in Brazil.

The key issues where observers would like to see progress at COP30 include:

1. More countries coming to the table with ambitious pledges in the form of stronger NDCs;
2. Evidence that more funding is being mobilized to fight climate change, especially for the Global South;
3. Proof that countries are keeping their current promises under the Paris Agreement, or that they are at least taking steps to close any gaps;
4. Progress on using Nature-Based Solutions like forest restoration and sustainable land management; and,
5. Stronger private sector engagement, including avoiding any backsliding from major companies, and in particular from the financial sector.

We would also like to see evidence at COP30 that the recently-created Loss and Damage Fund is starting to have an impact, and that the role of oceans in climate change mitigation and adaptation is being taken more seriously.

Even though the situation is bad, is there still hope?

Yes. Despite the recent bad news, we remain optimistic. History shows we have made positive strides already. We are convinced now is the time to double down on global, collaborative efforts to combat climate change, and that the UN COPs provide important, regular milestones to meet, review our progress, and strengthen our pledges.

One piece of good news lost among all the big, bad headlines relates to the leadership at COP30. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago has been chosen as president of COP30. He played a significant role in the Rio+20 negotiations and has been one of Brazil’s top civil servants for many years. His expertise when it comes to climate change and COPs is impressive. The appointment of such a consummate professional is a positive sign of how seriously the Brazilian government is taking its responsibilities as the COP30 host.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022). Their next book, Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet, is due for release in June 2025.

Excerpt:

With so much bad news about climate change lately, is it too late for the world to tackle the problem? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence review the current state-of-play.

By Ignatius Banda
BULAWAYO, Jan 30 2025 – Africa’s lack of robust application of statistical research has been flagged as slowing the use of evidence-based data to drive development.

The continent is home to a mix of socio-economic challenges where data collection continues to present a problem for authorities, but experts warn that this is stalling Africa’s development agenda.

National budgets and expertise have been found lacking in ensuring data and statistics drive planning towards the improvement of millions of lives in a continent projected to reach the one billion mark in the next decade.

This emerged during the recent Forum on Statistical Development in Africa (FASDev) where experts met in Addis Ababa under the theme: “Strengthening the Mobilization of Technical and Financial Resources to Support Innovation in Statistical Development in Africa.”

The forum was set up in 2004 by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, the African Development Bank, the World Bank and the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21), whose brief is to prioritise “disadvantaged statistical systems in least developed, low-income, fragile, and small island developing states to deliver quality data and statistics for sustainable development.”

The forum brings together representatives of national statistical offices, statistical training centres, international, regional and subregional institutions, bilateral agencies and international donors to deliberate on supporting statistical development in Africa.

Data collection is seen as a vital driver of sustainable development as it seeks to give a face to the continent’s challenges.

Experts say while African governments have made strides in professionalising the collection of data and statistics, there is still more to be done for the timely and accurate delivery of results collected from such research.

“There is a need to expedite the provision of robust data and statistics to assist governments in accelerating the achievement of the agenda for sustainable development and Agenda 2063 through their national development plans,” said Oliver Chinganya, Director of the Africa Centre for Statistics at the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA).

These comments come at a time when many African governments are struggling to adequately fund their national statistical agency, resulting in unreliable data in areas that include the overall country population in national censuses.

“Africa should urgently invest in robust data and statistical systems to accelerate sustainable development,” Chinganya said.

Data science is being touted globally as integral to understanding challenges that range from sectors such as agriculture, health, education and migration and will play a pivotal role in the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

The declaration was followed by the Accra Agenda for Action in 2008, which sets out to monitor progress on aid effectiveness whereby recipient countries “have more say over their development process.”

Experts say this can only be possible through the collection of reliable data and efficient statistical centres.

“The status of data collection in Africa is important for improving data quality and crucial for decision-making and development. Actors must work hard to produce credible statistics,” said Adoum Gagoloum, Chief Economic Statistics at the African Union Commission, who also serves as Acting Director of the African Union Institute for Statistics (STATAFRIC).

Gagoloum says there is an urgent need for governments to pool more resources towards setting up departments that will ensure that sustainable resources are allocated based on reliable data.

This is as some countries are yet to fully go digital in their data collection methods, further compromising the allocation of critical development resources.

“We need to explore new financing partnerships and resources to prioritize statistical development projects in Africa,” said Babatunde Omotosho, Director of the Statistics Department at the African Development Bank.

The UN Economic Commission for Africa, the African Union and the African Development Bank have partnered to roll out the modernisation of the continent’s data collection and statistical models as part of broader efforts towards realising targets set under Agenda 2063.

According to the ECA, the Statistical Commission for Africa (STATCOM) is already collaborating with the Food and Agriculture Organisation and regional agencies to exploit big data sources through training and capacity building on agricultural statistics.

“Transformation is essential to close the data gaps and in achieving the Africa Agenda 2063 and SDGs,” Omotosho said.

“However, this vision calls for skilled personnel and robust infrastructure, and it is here where stakeholders and donors can make an impact, not only to supply resources but to develop technical expertise,” he added.

The Forum on Statistical Development in Africa, with collaboration from national statistical centres, is banking on this new approach to bring a better understanding of the continent’s challenges at a time of competing development priorities.

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’);