#COP15

[notwiselybuttoowell]

A follow-up to the big biodiversity deal that was inked before Christmas

To me the most impressive things (well, all the points mentioned below matter, but these genuinely raised my eyebrows in surprise) are the fact that 30 by 30 was actually agreed to, as it's necessary but still ambitious when it comes down to it, and the centering and acknowledgement of indigenous people, who are all too often marginalized or tokenized.

The main thing is, of couse, will it be properly implemented. It's hard enough to get this sort of thing honored when one nation ostensibly agrees to it, but all these nations combined?

Agreement to conserve 30% of Earth by the end of the decade

Inspired by the Harvard biologist EO Wilson’s vision of protecting half the planet for the long-term survival of humanity, the most high-profile target at Cop15 has inspired and divided in equal measure. The final wording commits governments to conserving nearly a third of Earth for nature by 2030 while respecting indigenous and traditional territories in the expansion of new protected areas. The language emphasises the importance of effective conservation management to ensure wetlands, rainforests, grasslands and coral reefs are properly protected, not just on paper.

Indigenous rights at the heart of conservation

Indigenous peoples are mentioned 18 times in this decade’s targets to halt and reverse biodiversity, something to which activists are pointing as a historic victory. Several scientific studies have shown that Indigenous peoples are the best stewards of nature, representing 5% of humanity but protecting 80% of Earth’s biodiversity. From Brazil to the Philippines, Indigenous peoples are subjected to human rights abuses, violence and land grabs. The language in the text is clear: Indigenous-led conservation models must become the norm this decade if we are to take real action on biodiversity.

Reform of environmentally harmful subsidies

Definitely in the category of boring-but-important, the world spends at least $1.8tn (£1.3tn) every year on government subsidies driving the annihilation of wildlife and a rise in global heating, according to a study earlier this year. The lack of reform on environmentally harmful subsidies was a major failure of last decade’s biodiversity targets, and governments have now agreed on the importance of making a change.

Nature disclosures for businesses

Although the language was watered down in the final text, target 15 of the deal requires governments to ensure that large and transnational companies disclose “their risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity”. If implemented, this could be the start of a significant change in business practices. About half of global GDP is dependent on the healthy functioning of the natural world, according to the UN, and biodiversity loss is rapidly shooting up the agenda of corporate risks. Several countries are already developing rules for sustainable sourcing, on products from palm oil to rubber, which look set to spread after the Kunming-Montreal pact.

A way forward on digital biopiracy

Ahead of Cop15, digital sequence information (DSI) was the controversial hot potato – and something few really understood. DSI refers to digitised genetic information that we get from nature, which is used frequently to produce new drugs, vaccines and food products. These digital forms of biodiversity come from rainforests, peatlands, coral reefs and other rich ecosystems, but they are hard to trace back to their origin country, with many in the developing world now expecting payment for the use of their resources. In Montreal, an agreement was struck to develop a funding mechanism on DSI in the coming years, which has been hailed as a historic victory for African states who called for its creation before the summit.

[greenfue]

UN climate negotiations through the years to COP29

This year’s U.N. climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, marks the world’s 29th leadership gathering to confront global warming since the first “Conference of the Parties” in 1995. Here are some of the most significant moments in the history of climate talks: 1800s – For about 6,000 years before the industrial era, global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) remained around 280 parts per…

[jb4lord]

You don’t have to travel to a remote cave in China to find the next potential pandemic: SARS-like viruses have been discovered in bats in the United Kingdom, which could be just one disaster or system change away from becoming the next pandemic.

If no non-linearities or no complex cycles were feeding back into the different pressures, we could treat every pressure individually and generate responses to those pressures without consideration of other pressures. [But] we're recognizing now that these crises shouldn't be siloed,” Davies said. “They should be thought of together — and we're looking at the sort of solution pathways, policy and societal pathways that can help address those interactions between those crises.

Failure to address these global connections is why we’ve failed to stay on track with global targets such as those set in the Paris Agreement and Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Targets that emerged from COP15.

“Every time we set ourselves a target, we've missed it,” Davies said. “We've got to ask ourselves why, and how can we make sure we're not just setting up … another target we're going to miss? How do we set targets and identify the solutions pathways so we can actually meet them? That's the big goal — so, we need a new approach.”

[ruemorinpointcom]

Pour un Plan Nature 2030 à la hauteur des attentes

Le CREDD Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean organise le « Rendez-vous de la biodiversité » Continue reading Untitled

[biodiversidadenaccion]

COP15: el planeta nos necesita

COP15 y cómo está convirtiendo señalando la nueva urgencia: los gobiernos y las empresas pueden hacer para restaurar el capital natural.

Los daños al planeta por parte de las acciones humanas y riesgos que tienen como impacto relacionados con la naturaleza son significativos, pero rara vez reciben la atención que merecen. 

En la 15ª COP de Biodiversidad de la ONU, decenas de miles de líderes y representantes se alinearon en objetivos claros.

Objetivos claros

La Conferencia de Biodiversidad de la ONU (COP15) de este año fue más grande que nunca. 

Celebrado en Montreal en diciembre, el evento acogió a casi 20 000 líderes y representantes, un aumento significativo de los 3800 participantes en la edición anterior de 2018. 

Más de 1000 empresas estuvieron representadas en comparación con sólo unas docenas en las COP de biodiversidad anteriores. 

La diversidad de asistentes a la COP15 fomenta un diálogo más profundo y la transparencia entre todos los actores que deben involucrarse en la restauración del capital natural y las condiciones para que eso suceda. 

La agenda se centró en cómo proteger el capital natural y limitar la pérdida de biodiversidad en todo el mundo, y la atención que recibió la reunión destacó el creciente reconocimiento de que el estado de la naturaleza es ahora una causa de preocupación generalizada e inmediata.

Entre las cuestiones clave debatidas en Montreal estuvo el alcance de los desafíos que enfrentan los ecosistemas terrestres y marinos. Los participantes examinaron métodos para proteger y restaurar estos ecosistemas con un enfoque especial en la mitigación de pérdidas y modelos financieros para lograr los objetivos de protección y restauración.

Una nueva investigación de McKinsey and Company que se publicó coincidiendo con la COP15 hace un primer intento cuantificado de abordar cómo las empresas pueden participar.

Adoptar un enfoque de múltiples partes interesadas para restaurar el capital natural

El informe, Naturaleza en el equilibrio: Qué pueden hacer las empresas para restaurar el capital natural, busca calcular el impacto de la actividad humana en el capital natural.

Sus hallazgos están lejos de ser fatalistas: el informe sugiere que, si bien una variedad de sectores económicos contribuyen al agotamiento del capital natural (principalmente la agricultura, pero también las ventas minoristas y los servicios y el sector energético), las acciones específicas de las empresas que utilizan las tecnologías actuales podrían no solo revertir la tendencia, sino que también generan un retorno positivo de la inversión en un número considerable de casos.

El informe es la última investigación de McKinsey para abordar el capital natural y se centra en las acciones corporativas al tiempo que menciona los habilitadores de políticas. En junio de 2022, publicamos una evaluación cuantitativa de la naturaleza y el riesgo para las instituciones financieras en África. 

Y nuestro informe de septiembre de 2020 sobre Valoración de la conservación de la naturaleza estimó que la acción sobre la naturaleza podría respaldar alrededor de 30 millones de empleos y $500 mil millones del PIB en ecoturismo y pesca y beneficiar particularmente a lugares remotos. y comunidades vulnerables.

Nuestro análisis muestra que, para ser efectivas y eficientes, las acciones corporativas deberían estar acompañadas por el apoyo de otros actores tanto del sector público como del social.

El imperativo comercial para invertir en la naturaleza

Mitigar el riesgo climático es imposible sin invertir en la naturaleza, pero a diferencia del riesgo climático, que ha sido estudiado durante las últimas dos décadas y ha dado lugar a un marco de objetivos globales, objetivos corporativos y guías de acción, métricas y contabilidad, y monedas globales emergentes, las preguntas básicas sobre la naturaleza quedan sin respuesta. 

El riesgo relacionado con la naturaleza no tiene una unidad única de comparación y no existe un objetivo único para preservar el capital natural, como limitar el calentamiento global a 1,5 °C.

Como resultado, los compromisos corporativos relacionados con la naturaleza han sido en gran medida oportunistas en lugar de basarse en la estrategia, la huella o los objetivos globales.

Los resultados de la COP15 tienen varias implicaciones para las empresas. El 19 de diciembre, el Marco Global de Biodiversidad de Kunming-Montreal fue adoptado como el principal resultado de la COP15, proporcionando objetivos claros. 

Estos incluyen, para 2030, proteger al menos el 30 por ciento de las áreas terrestres, de aguas continentales y costeras y marinas y garantizar que al menos el 30 por ciento de las áreas degradadas estén bajo restauración efectiva. 

Lograr estos objetivos casi duplicaría la cantidad de tierra y aguas nacionales conservadas, lo que puede afectar las operaciones comerciales que dependen de los recursos naturales, actuales y futuros.

Otros objetivos también tienen importantes implicaciones comerciales y financieras.

El objetivo 15 del acuerdo, por ejemplo, tiene como objetivo alentar y permitir que las empresas monitoreen sus riesgos, dependencias e impactos en la biodiversidad y puede traducirse en regulaciones nacionales de informes. 

Y Target 19 tiene como objetivo movilizar $200 mil millones por año para 2030 (se adoptó una meta similar para el clima en 2009 en Copenhague). Esto supone que se activará la financiación privada y se incentivará al sector privado para invertir en la biodiversidad.

El camino a seguir

McKinsey aspira a ser un catalizador en dos áreas: ayudar a las empresas a diseñar e implementar transformaciones positivas para la naturaleza y guiar a los gobiernos sobre cómo diseñar e implementar de manera óptima sus objetivos 30×30. 

Por ejemplo, se está trabajando con Blue Nature Alliance, que tiene como objetivo promover la conservación de los océanos a gran escala, y con Endwhile Earth, que tiene como objetivo acelerar la conservación de los océanos, la tierra y el agua dulce, y apoyar el desarrollo comunitario en todo el mundo. 

2023 será un año crucial para progresar, y las empresas, los gobiernos y las organizaciones no gubernamentales por igual tienen un papel importante que desempeñar.

Los líderes corporativos deben comprender la magnitud del desafío que se avecina, los riesgos que podría plantear la pérdida de capital natural y las oportunidades para la construcción de negocios más sostenibles, así como las implicaciones del Marco de Biodiversidad Global Kunming-Montreal recientemente adoptado para su empresa.

Hemos pasado el momento en que la inacción es aceptable.

Los esfuerzos que las empresas han realizado sobre la acción climática y las lecciones que han aprendido podrían aprovechar los esfuerzos de descarbonización existentes para ayudar a preservar el capital natural y la Tierra tal como la conocemos.

Originally published at http://accionbiodiversidadblog.com/ April 22, 2023.

[biodiversityday]

Reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted during the fifteenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 15) following a four year consultation and negotiation process. This historic Framework, which supports the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and builds on the Convention’s previous Strategic Plans, sets out an ambitious pathway to reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050. Among the Framework’s key elements are 4 goals for 2050 and 23 targets for 2030. 

The implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be guided and supported through a comprehensive package of decisions also adopted at COP 15. This package includes a monitoring framework for the GBF,  an enhanced mechanism for planning, monitoring, reporting and reviewing implementation, the necessary financial resources for implementation, strategic frameworks for capacity development and technical and scientific cooperation, as well as an agreement on digital sequence information on genetic resources.

In adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, all Parties committed to setting national targets to implement it, while all other actors have been invited to develop and communicate their own commitments. At the next meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2024 in Türkiye, the world will take stock of the targets and commitments that have been set.

To download the official text of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework see decision 15/4.

[ilbioeconomista]

UN Targets 20 Million Green Jobs Through Nature-Based Solutions

Twenty million jobs could be created worldwide through the power of nature, which could potentially address significant societal and environmental issues such as climate change, disaster risk, and food and water insecurity, as announced during the United Nation’s Biodiversity Conference, COP15, in Montreal. (more…) “”

[yo-sostenible]

Lo bueno, lo malo y lo feo: un pacto histórico por la biodiversidad

◽️La 15. a Conferencia de las Partes del Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre Biodiversidad se llevó a cabo en Montreal del 7 al 19 de diciembre de 2022. Los resultados fueron mixtos. Este artículo analiza lo bueno, lo malo, lo feo, así como el camino a seguir desde la COP15 de la CDB. Por Simone Lovera* 16 de enero, 2023.- Fue un acontecimiento incómodo: justo en el momento en que el ministro…

[actu-alite]

[chinemagazine]

La Chine va doper un « cadre mondial pour la biodiversité pour l'après 2020 »

CGTN - La Chine accentuera le progrès écologique et planifiera son développement pour une coexistence harmonieuse entre l'homme et la nature

De CGTN – Le segment de haut niveau de la deuxième partie de la 15e Conférence des Parties de la Convention sur la diversité biologique (COP15) s’est conclu samedi à Montréal, au Canada. La réunion a joué un rôle très important dans la promotion du processus de négociation de la COP15, selon Huang Runqiu, président de la COP15 et ministre chinois de l’Écologie et de l’Environnement. «La Chine…

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from The Guardian:

Governments risk another decade of failure on biodiversity loss, due to the slow implementation of an international agreement to halt the destruction of Earth’s ecosystems, experts have warned.

Less than two years ago, the world reached a historic agreement at the Cop15 summit in Montreal to stop the human-caused destruction of life on our planet. The deal included targets to protect 30% of the planet for nature by the end of the decade (30x30), reform $500bn (then £410bn) of environmentally damaging subsidies, and begin restoring 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems.

But as country representatives dig into their second week of negotiations at Cop16 in Cali, Colombia – their first meeting since Montreal – alarm is growing at the lack of concrete progress on any of the major targets they agreed upon. An increasing number of indicators show that governments are not on track. They still need to protect an area of land equivalent to the combined size of Brazil and Australia, and an expanse of sea larger than the Indian Ocean to meet the headline 30x30 target, according to a new UN report.

Weak progress on funding for nature and almost no progress on subsidy reform have also frustrated observers. At the time of publication, 158 countries are yet to submit formal plans on how they are going to meet the targets, according to Carbon Brief, missing their deadline this month ahead of the biodiversity summit in Cali, where governments are not likely to set a new deadline.

The world has never met a target to stem the destruction of wildlife and life-sustaining ecosystems. Amid growing scientific warnings about the state of life on Earth, there has been a major push to make sure this decade is different, and that governments comply with targets designed to prevent wildlife extinctions, such as cuts to pesticides use and pollution.

Leading figures in conservation and science have raised concerns about the progress governments are making towards the targets in Cali. Martin Harper, CEO of Birdlife International, said meaningful action on commitments was vital.

“We cannot accept inaction as the new normal. This means more action to bolster efforts to recover threatened species, to protect and restore more land, fresh water and sea, and to transform our food, energy and industrial systems. We have five years to raise hundreds of billions of dollars. If we don’t see it materialise, I dread to think where we will be in 2030,” he said

[dailyanarchistposts]

Something is rotten (but not just) in Denmark. As a matter of fact, thousands of people have been considered, without any evidence, a threat to the society. Hundreds have been arrested and some are still under detention, waiting for judgment or under investigation. Among them, us, the undersigned. We want to tell the story from the peculiar viewpoint of those that still see the sky from behind the bars.

A UN meeting of crucial importance has failed because of several contradictions and tensions that have shown up during the COP15. The primary concern of the powerful was the governance of the energy supply for never-ending growth. This was the case whether they were from the overdeveloped world, like the EU countries or the US, or from the so-called developing countries, like China or Brazil.

At odds, hundreds of delegates and thousands of people in the streets have raised the issue that the rationale of life must be (and actually is) opposed to that of profit. we have strongly affirmed our will to stop anthropic pressure on the biosphere.

A crisis of the energy paradigm is coming soon. The mechanism of the global governance have proven to be overwhelmingly precarious. The powerful failed not only in reaching an agreement on their internal equilibrium but also in keeping the formal control of the discussion.

Climate change is an extreme and ultimate expression of the violence of the capitalistic growth paradigm. People globally are increasingly showing the willingness of taking the power to rebel against that violence. We have seen that in Copenhagen, as well as we have seen that same violence. Hundreds of people have been arrested without any reason or clear evidence, or for participating in peaceful and legitimate demonstrations. Even mild examples of civil disobedience have been considered as a serious threat to the social order.

In response we ask — What order do we threaten and who ordered it? Is it that order in which we do not anymore own our bodies? The order well beyond the terms of any reasonable “social contract” that we would ever sign, where our bodies can be taken, managed, constrained and imprisoned without any serious evidence of crime. Is it that order in which the decision are more and more shielded from any social conflicts? Where the governance less and less belongs to people, not even through the parliament? As a matter of fact, non-democratic organisms like the WTO, the NB, the G-whatever rule beyond any control.

We are forced to notice that the theater of democracy is a broken one as soon as, one approaches the core of the power. That is why we reclaim the power to the people. We reclaim the power over our own lives. Above all, we reclaim the power to counterpose the rationale of life and of the commons to the rationale of profit. It may have been declared illegal, but still we consider it fully legitimate.

Since no real space is left in the broken theater, we reclaimed our collective power — Actually we expected it — to speak about the climate and energy issues. Issues that, for us, involve critical nodes of global justice, survival of man and energy independence. We did marching with our bodies.

We prefer to enter the space where the power is locked dancing and singing. We would have liked to do this at the Bella center, to disrupt the session in accord with hundreds of delegates. But we were, as always, violently hampered by the police. They arrested our bodies in an attempt to arrest our ideas. we risked our bodies, trying to protect them just by staying close to each other. We value our bodies: We need them to make love, to stay together and to enjoy life. They hold our brains, with beautiful bright ideas and views. They hold our hearts filled with passion and joy. Nevertheless, we risked them. we risked our bodies getting locked in prisons. In fact, what would be the worth of thinking and feeling if the bodies did not move? Doing nothing, letting-it-happen, would be the worst form of complicity with the business that wanted to hack the UN meeting. At the COP15 we moved, and we will keep moving.

Exactly like love, civil disobedience can not just be told. We must make it, with our bodies. Otherwise, we would not really think about what we love, and we would not really love what we think about. It’s as simple as that. It’s a matter of love, justice and dignity.

How the COP15 has ended proves that we were right. Many of us are paying what is mandatory for an obsessive, pervasive and total repression: To find a guilty at the cost of inventing it (along with the crime perhaps).

We are detained with evidently absurd accusations about either violences that actually did not take place or conspiracies and organizing of law-breaking actions.

We do not feel guilty for having shown, together with thousands, the reclamation of the independence of our lives from profit’s rule. If the laws oppose this, it was legitimate to peacefully — but still conflictually — break them.

We are just temporarily docked, ready to sail again with a wind stronger than ever. It’s a matter of love, justice and dignity.

Luca Tornatore — from the Italian social centres network “see you in Copenhagen”. Natasha Verco — Climate Justice Action Stine Gry Jonassen — Climate Justice Action Tannie Nyboe — Climate Justice Action Johannes Paul Schul Meyer Arvip Peschel Christian Becker Kharlanchuck Dzmitry Cristoph Lang Anthony Arrabalr

[nyantria]

また原子力以外の代替エネルギーについても否定的で、例えば太陽光発電については「太陽光パネルの寿命は意外と短い。その前に、4,5年経つと部品の劣化・接続不良などの故障が起こる。15年で元をとるとか20年では優に元がとれるというがこれは眉唾、というよりウソ」としている[13]。

地球温暖化については、その真偽についての判断を留保[24]しながらも 「結論を急ぎすぎないことが重要」「科学が政治力学に左右されるとろくなことはない」 と、COP15の枠組みによる政治合意や早急な対策を取ることについては批判的な姿勢を取っている。

ただ2012年1月に、ウォルフ黒点相対数が増加する時期にも関わらず太陽黒点が増えていないことを根拠として、「（太陽黒点が）少ないと太陽からの磁束が弱く、また太陽外部に漏れにくくなり、太陽系に降り注ぐ宇宙線が磁束に捕捉されにくくなり、地球大気に当たる宇宙線の強度が増します。大気に当たる宇宙線によって大気中には雲が発生しますから・・・・・地球大気の雲の量が増え、地球は寒冷化します」と、温暖化ではなく、寒冷化を心配すべきと言及している[25]。しかしこの意見は大槻のオリジナルではなく、デンマークのスヴェンスマルク博士のものであり、日本では丸山茂徳などが紹介し、数名の学者が2007年ころから地球寒冷化の心配を呼びかけている。

大槻義彦 - Wikipedia

[mariacallous]

One hundred miles west of Johannesburg in South Africa, the Komati Power Station is hard to miss, looming above the flat grassland and farming landscapes like an enormous eruption of concrete, brick, and metal.

When the coal-fired power station first spun up its turbines in 1961, it had twice the capacity of any existing power station in South Africa. It has been operational for more than half a century, but as of October 2022, Komati has been retired—the stacks are cold and the coal deliveries have stopped.

Now a different kind of activity is taking place on the site, transforming it into a beacon of clean energy: 150 MW of solar, 70 MW of wind, and 150 MW of storage batteries. The beating of coal-fired swords into sustainable plowshares has become the new narrative for the Mpumalanga province, home to most of South Africa’s coal-fired power stations, including Komati.

To get here, the South African government has had to think outside the box. Phasing out South Africa’s aging coal-fired power station fleet—which supplies 86 percent of the country’s electricity—is expensive and politically risky, and could come at enormous social and economic cost to a nation already struggling with energy security and socioeconomic inequality. In the past, bits and pieces of energy-transition funding have come in from organizations such as the World Bank, which assisted with the Komati repurposing, but for South Africa to truly leave coal behind, something financially bigger and better was needed.

That arrived at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, in November 2021, in the form of a partnership between South Africa, European countries, and the US. Together, they made a deal to deliver $8.5 billion in loans and grants to help speed up South Africa’s transition to renewables, and to do so in a socially and economically just way.

This agreement was the first of what’s being called Just Energy Transition Partnerships, or JETPs, an attempt to catalyze global finance for emerging economies looking to shift energy reliance away from fossil fuels in a way that doesn’t leave certain people and communities behind.

Since South Africa’s pioneering deal, Indonesia has signed an agreement worth $20 billion, Vietnam one worth $15.5 billion, and Senegal one worth $2.75 billion. Discussions are taking place for a possible agreement for India. Altogether, around $100 billion is on the table.

There’s significant enthusiasm for JETPs in the climate finance arena, particularly given the stagnancy of global climate finance in general. At COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, developed countries signed up to a goal of mobilizing $100 billion of climate finance for developing countries per year by 2020. None have met that target, and the agreement lapses in 2025. The hope is that more funding for clear-cut strategies and commitments will lead to quicker moves toward renewables.

South Africa came into the JETP agreement with a reasonably mature plan for a just energy transition, focusing on three sectors: electricity, new energy vehicles, and green hydrogen. Late last year, it fleshed that out with a detailed Just Energy Transition investment plan. Specifically, the plan centers on decommissioning coal plants, providing alternative employment for those working in coal mining, and accelerating the development of renewable energy and the green economy. It is a clearly defined but big task.

South Africa’s coal mining and power sector employs around 200,000 people, many in regions with poor infrastructure and high levels of poverty. So the “just” part of the “just energy transition” is critical, says climate finance expert Malango Mughogho, who is managing director of ZeniZeni Sustainable Finance Limited in South Africa and a member of the United Nations High-Level Expert Group on net-zero emissions commitments.

“People are going to lose their jobs. Industries do need to shift so, on a net basis, the average person living there needs to not be worse off from before,” she says. This is why the project focuses not only on the energy plants themselves, but also on reskilling, retraining, and redeployment of coal workers.

In a country where coal is also a major export, there are economic and political sensitivities around transitioning to renewables, and that poses a challenge in terms of how the project is framed. “Given the high unemployment rate in South Africa as well … you cannot sell it as a climate change intervention,” says Deborah Ramalope, head of climate policy analysis at the policy institute Climate Analytics in Berlin. “You really need to sell it as a socioeconomic intervention.”

That would be a hard sell if the only investment coming in were $8.5 billion—an amount far below what’s needed to completely overhaul a country’s energy sector. But JETPs aren’t intended to completely or even substantially bankroll these transitions. The idea is that this initial financial boost signals to private financiers both within and outside South Africa that things are changing.

Using public finance to leverage private investment is a common and often successful practice, Mughogho says. The challenge is to make the investment prospects as attractive as possible. “Typically private finance will move away from something if they consider it to be too risky and they’re not getting the return that they need,” she says. “So as long as those risks have been clearly identified and then managed in some way, then the private sector should come through.” This is good news, as South Africa has forecast it will need nearly $100 billion to fully realize the just transition away from coal and toward clean vehicles and green hydrogen as outlined in its plan.

Will all of that investment arrive? It’s such early days with the South African JETP that there’s not yet any concrete indication of whether the approach will work.

But the simple fact that such high-profile, high-dollar agreements are being signed around just transitions is cause for hope, says Haley St. Dennis, head of just transitions at the Institute for Human Rights and Business in Salt Lake City, Utah. “What we have seen so far, particularly from South Africa, which is the furthest along, is very promising,” she says. These projects demonstrate exactly the sort of international cooperation needed for successful climate action, St. Dennis adds.

The agreements aren’t perfect. For example, they may not rule out oil and gas as bridging fuels between coal and renewables, says St. Dennis. “The rub is that, especially for many of the JETP countries—which are heavily coal-dependent, low- and middle-income economies—decarbonization can’t come at any cost,” she says. “That especially means that it can’t threaten what is often already tenuous energy security and energy access for their people, and that's where oil and gas comes in in a big way.”

Ramalope says they also don’t go far enough. “I think the weakness of JETPs is that they’re not encouraging 1.5 [degrees] Celsius,” she says, referring to the limit on global warming set as a target by the Paris Agreement in 2015. In Senegal, which is not coal-dependent, the partnership agreement is to achieve 40 percent renewables in Senegal’s electricity mix. But Ramalope says analysis suggests the country could achieve double this amount. “I think that’s a missed opportunity.”

Another concern is that these emerging economies could be simply trapping themselves in more debt with these agreements. While there’s not much detail about the relative proportions of grants and loans in South Africa’s agreement, St. Dennis says most of the funding is concessional, or low-interest loans. “Why add more debt when the intention is to dramatically catalyze decarbonization in a very short timescale?” she asks. Grants themselves are estimated to be a very small component of the overall funding—around 5 percent.

But provided they generate the funding needed to bring emissions down as desired, the view of JETPs is largely positive, says Sierd Hadley, an economist with the Overseas Development Institute in London. For Hadley, the concern is whether JETPs can be sustained once the novelty has worn off, and once they aren’t being featured as part of a COP or G20 leadup. But he notes that the fact that the international community has managed to deliver at least four of the five JETP deals so far—with India yet to be locked in—shows there is pressure to make good on the promises.

“On the whole, the fact that there has been a plan, and that that plan is broadly in progress, suggests that on balance this has been fairly successful,” he says. “It’s a very significant moment for climate finance.”

[lifebuoyjournals]

Another case of lofty goals and lack of tangible support

At COP15 last year, countries agreed to a biodiversity deal that includes protecting and restoring 30% of the world's land and seas by 2030. As part of the deal, it was agreed that wealthy nations will contribute US$30bil/year to ensure that low to middle income countries (LMICs) are also able to achieve the target.

During COP15, LMICs that are biodiversity-rich called for a new independent fund, because the current funding manager, called Global Environment Facility (GEF), is too slow to distribute funds and inaccessible. But high income countries disagreed and decided that the new fund should still be managed by GEF.

There are other concerns too, e.g. upfront commitment of money (LMICs) vs setting up the trust first then discussing budget later. Also, the current proposed fund (which high income countries still arent willing to commit upfront to) is $200 million, whereas research estimated show that to achieve the goal, $700 billion is required.

Countries are expected to meet and review this proposal in these few days, but there seems to be still no tangible commitment on the horizon