Whenever an entity stood for itself to claim specific interest, it has faced humiliation at every possible level. Fight for rights never gone smoothly in history, for instance, women’s rights, slave’s rights, children’s rights, rights of a prisoner of war, etc. (Stone 1972: 451). Nobody thought in earlier times that even these could be considered as rights. The problem with our society is that we work for our self-interest. We exploit a thing up to a level that entity itself gets a realization that whatever is happening with them is not correct. Apart from self-interest, a perspective always plays a vital role in protecting the interest of the victim. The exploiters might never imagine that their actions are, in a way, harmful to the other being. Such exploitation can be rectified only with enlightenment and awareness among the general masses in time. It is to be understood that rights are always needed by the oppressed, not the oppressor. The journey of plant rights is no exception to this situation. When people come across this term, they laugh at the very first instance, considering it to be just a vague concept. This notion did not even find much discussion among the academician across the globe.
Furthermore, we disregard someone’s right, either knowingly or unknowingly. In the case of plant rights, it is mostly unknowingly since we do not consider plants to as being as they do not behave like humans or animals. Various studies suggest that plants own life, and they do respond to their surroundings in their way (Tandon 2019: 593). However, scientists are skeptical about the question of sentience in plants (Pelizzon and Gagliano 2015). Thus it makes the whole regime uncertain and necessary to be further analyzed with extra care.
The fact that plants cannot speak like other creatures does not make them less being. If they live and die like other entities on this planet, then we should reconsider our legal regime to address their concerns. Present laws for the protection of plants provide a limited scope in their application. Humans consider plants as a commodity and govern their conservation for the fulfillment of their own needs. This issue necessitates a plant-centric legal regime that should enable plants to possess their own legal identity and rights. There exist scientific limitations to provide evidence for this study. However, it is appropriate to develop an approach today, so to avoid any guilt in the future.
NEED FOR PLANT RIGHTS
The underlying issue with the plants is that they are not granted rights per se. Any violation of plant rights cannot be brought before the courts with a reason that an injury has been inflicted upon plants. The actions against plants can be challenged in the court only when it affects the interests of other human beings related to such plants. If one cannot show the nexus between the plant and its owner or regulator, then the accused party shall not be held liable for its derogatory actions. This scenario depicts a problem where the interests of the plants are compromised, and those of humans prevail.
The human-centric legal regime provides that nature should be conserved and protected to fulfill the needs of humans (Shastri 2013: 523). On the contrary, one should argue that several plant species are on the verge of extinction. It is necessary to develop a legal regime to prevent biodiversity loss and mitigate floral destruction (Marder 2013: 46-47).
Further, scientific studies are uncertain on the issue of pleasure and pain in plants (Calvo, Sahi and Trewavas 2017). Scientists have a difference in opinion on this issue. Where one set considers that plants lack a nervous system so they cannot respond to pain, the other argues that plants work differently from humans (Shepherd 2012). Daniel Chamovitz, in his 2012 book ‘What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses’ has called such a response of plants as “anoetic consciousness” – an ability to sense and react (Chamovitz 2012). However, if plants feel pain, for instance, then even plucking a leaf from the plant will constitute an illegal action that will not be preferred by the plant. Thus a need arose to determine the status of a silent entity to ensure global justice in the world.
PLANT RIGHTS: DEFINITION AND SCOPE
As per Christopher Stone in his book “Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects”, the realm of legal rights entails three aspects for the right holder. Firstly, such rights-holder can take legal action at their will. Secondly, the injury needs to be identifiable by the court that is determining relief for such an entity. Thirdly, such assistance must be in the interest of rights-holder and benefit him (Stone 1972: 458).
The definition of plant rights can be read in similar lines of human rights. Those inherent rights that every plant possesses by being a plant are its plant rights. International human rights found its basis on the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness (Whelan 2010). These plant rights shall be based on the similar principles of human rights. Apart from the right to live and protect against their extinction, plant rights shall also include dignity and ethical considerations for the plant. The plants shall not be subjected to the arbitrary and unethical actions of a human.
The term ‘arbitrary’ and ‘unethical’ are subjective and open for debate. While determining the scope of these rights, some might consider even plucking of the flower to be arbitrary. In contrast, for the others, arbitrariness could include deforestation, destructive cultivation, affecting reproduction, and changing the genetic pattern of plants. Although this debate is unsettled, however, the plant’s life and their dignity need to be respected beyond doubt (Schulp 2019: 112).
NATURE OF PLANT RIGHTS
Both Christopher Stone and Peter Singer have argued that these rights should not be followed in their strict sense. Granting of rights did not mean equal treatment, rather equal consideration (Singer 1993). If we take plant rights up to the absolute sense, humans cannot even have food on their plates. In such a scenario, then will it means that we are compromising the right to life of humans. Also, before identifying their rights, it is to be determined that whether each plant on earth shall be given equal rights, or we could bring some differentiation or exemption while conferring rights to some of them. Thus a distinction between vegetable and ornamental plants could be observed while determining the nature and extent of plant rights.
Science mentions that plants and animals have a similar origin (Meyerowitz 1999). Where we have a plethora of rights for one animal (humans), it is pertinent to have rights for plant kingdom that must be plant-centric instead of being human-centric. The new system should protect the interests of plants instead of humans.
WHAT ARE THE PRESENT LAWS FOR PLANT?
The present plant regime is regulated by numerous international instruments covering various aspects of plant protection. International Plant Protection Convention of 1951 prevents the entry and spreading of pests on plants. International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of 2004, also known as the International Seed Treaty aims for food security through conservation and sustainable use of plant’s genetic resources. It works in the collaboration of the Convention on Biological Diversity, another multilateral framework with a goal of conservation of biological diversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, 1973 (CITES) is another multilateral arrangement to protect endangered plants and animals. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1961 (UPOV) provides intellectual property rights to the generators of new varieties of plants.
Though the present international law non-uniformly recognizes the intrinsic value of plants still, it does not accord any legal personality to plants. Notably, some of these instruments consider plants as an object and protect them, not for their conservation but to fulfill the requirements of human. The present situation could be understood similarly as to the rights of indigenous peoples that are considered necessary for their lives and livelihood against economic developments (Phillips 2015). Thus, plants should have a mechanism available to seek redressal for their grievances.
In the 21st century, there were attempts to recognize this new realm of rights. On the 56th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Venezuelan government organizations and biological groups adopted the Universal Declaration of Plant Rights that consists of 22 principles. This declaration presents a very stringent protectionist view of plant rights. Also, the April 2008 Swiss Report “The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants” claims that since plants are alive, their morality must be respected. Further, they must not be considered as an object that can be owned by anyone (Willemsen 2008: 20).
States have reflected a commendable approach to provide legal rights to environmental entities. In the year 2008, Ecuador became the first state to adopt the rights of nature in its constitution (Revkin 2008). In 2010, Bolivia adopted legislation to grant legal standing to nature (Eckstein et al 2019: 805). New Zealand provided legal personality to Te Urewera national park in 2014, and later such status was also conferred to Mount Taranaki and Whanganui river to represent their interest through its guardians (Gleeson-White 2018). Similarly, in 2017, Uttarakhand High Court in India has conferred the status of ‘living entity’ upon river Ganga and Yamuna by making Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, ‘Namami Gange‘ project director and Advocate General of the State as a legal parent to the river to represent their interest in the court (Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others 2014). In the same year, Columbia has granted legal rights to the river Rio Atrato (Mount 2017). Thus, a similar approach is needed to be undertaken for plants as well where custodians are to be appointed those who may speak purely for the interest of plants before the court of law.
As we need a law to protect our liberties, provide remedies, and tackle all forms of oppression and discrimination. Similarly, plants also require the same for their existence. It is not a justified argument that since plants cannot speak so they cannot argue and plead in the court of law for their rights. Bentham advocates that the threshold to determine rights for a being should be their capacity to suffer (Singer 1993). Being a right-holder, plants can bring the claim for their interest. Moreover, such law much is made considering their interest at large. The emergence of a new right for an entity diminishes the existing realm of rights exercised by the others. Thus such necessary amendments need to be brought in our present legal system. Also, such plant rights shall be treated at par with human rights, if not superior.
Both plants and animals require sunlight, air, water, wind, earth, for their survival and development. Studies say that plant does communicate with each other in different forms (Karban 2008). Plants like ‘Touch-me-not’ (mimosa pudica) (Kumar et al 2009) or sunflower (helianthus) (Vandenbrink et al 2014: 21) shows a response to the external stimuli. It is also said that plant never dies until affected by any human-made or natural factor (Trewavas 2016). Most importantly, the plant produces ‘seeds’ that signifies the essence of life in them. It can be said that they are not a machine that breathes carbon dioxide in the presence of the sun and vice-versa. On the contrary, they occupy an essential part of the environment, along with humans. Based on a few fundamental differences between plants and animals, for example, mobility, one cannot ignore equality between the components of the environment.
The critical question is, ‘Whether plants feel pain?’ Up till now, no accurate answer has been obtained from studies. Different scientists have suggested various theories for it. The response to the issue of plant rights found its basis in a more nuanced scientific discovery. So now, another question could arise ‘What should be done until we get a certain answer?’ In the absence of such knowledge, should it be appropriate to leave the notion of plant rights aside to be decided by our future generation? Another preferable aspect could be to set up a framework for now identifying the fundamental issues of plant rights. Such a regime should come from the plant’s perspective as a matter of being a living entity. No matter, science may take the time to answer the plant mystery; however, as a human, it is our responsibility to show respect towards the plant and their dignity in our actions (Koechlin 2009). It requires sensitization among people that rather objectifying plants as a matter to fulfill their selfish needs.
A strict need for change in perception is required. Since all of our previous generations, including us, have grown up exploiting plants from ages directly or indirectly, consequently today we do not sense any form of injustice in it. We got very well accommodated in this regime, and it seems beyond imagination to think of any such idea as plant rights. This reform is challenging; however, not impossible. It would be an honor for our generation and a gift for future ones if we can correct something that has been wrongly followed by our forefathers, especially after industrialization.
- Calvo, Paco, Sahi, Vaidurya Pratap and Trewavas, Anthony (2017): “Are plants sentient?,” Plant Cell & Environment, 6 September < https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13065>.
- Chamovitz, Daniel (2012): What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses, New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Eckstein, Gabriel et al (2019): “Conferring legal personality on the world’s rivers: A brief intellectual assessment,” Water International, Vol 44, No (6-7), pp 804-829.
- Food and Agriculture Organization (1951):“International Plant Protection Convention,” UNTS, Vol 150, opened for signature 6 December, pp 67.
- Food and Agriculture Organization (2001): “International Treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture,” UNTS, Vol 2400,opened for signature 3 November, pp 303.
- Gleeson-White, Jane (2018): “It’s only natural: the push to give rivers, mountains and forests legal rights,” The Guardian, 1 April <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/01/its-only-natural-the-push-to-give-rivers-mountains-and-forests-legal-rights>.
- Government of Switzerland (1973): “Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora,” UNTS, Vol 993, opened for signature 3 March, pp 243.
- Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (1992): “Convention on Biological Diversity,” UNTS, Vol 1760, opened for signature 5 June, pp 79.
- International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (1961): “International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants,” OJ, Vol L192 opened for signature 2 December, pp 64.
- Karban, Richard (2008): “Plant behaviour and communication,” Ecology Letters, Vol 11, pp 727-739.
- Koechlin, Florianne (2009): “The dignity of plants,” Plants Signaling & Behavior, Vol 4, No 1,pp 78-79 <https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.4.1.7315>.
- Kumar, Nilesh et al (2009): “Mimosa pudica L. a sensitive plant,” International Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol 1, No 1, pp 1-7.
- Marder, Michael (2013): “Should plants have rights?,” The Philosopher’s Magazine, Vol 62, No 3, 46-50.
- Meyerowitz, Elliot M (1999): “Plants, animals and the logic of development,” Trends in cell biology, Vol 9, No 12, pp M65-M68.
- Mount, Nick (2017): “Can a river have legal rights? A different approach to protecting the environment,” Independent 13 October <https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/river-legal-rights-colombia-environment-pacific-rainforest-atrato-river-rio-quito-a7991061.html>.
- National Assembly Legislative and Oversight Committee(2008): Republica del Ecuador Constitucion de 2008 (Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008), chapter VII <http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html>.
- Pelizzon, Alessandro and Gagliano, Monica (2015): “The Sentience of Plants: Animal Rights and Rights of Nature Intersecting?,” Australian Animal Protection Law Journal Vol 11, No 5, pp 5-13.
- Phillips, James S (2015): “The rights of indigenous peoples under international law,” Global Bioethics, Vol 26, No 2, pp 120-127.
- Revkin, Andrew C (2008): “Ecuador Constitution Grants Rights to Nature,” The New York Times, 29 September <https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/ecuador-constitution-grants-nature-rights/>.
- Salim v State of Uttarakhand and Others (2014): Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, Uttarakhand High Court.
- Schulp, Jan A (2019): “Animal rights/Plants rights,” Research in Hospitality Management, Vol 9, No 2, pp 109-112.
- Singer, Peter (1993): Practical Ethics United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
- Shastri, Satish C (2013): “Environmental Ethics Anthropocentric to Eco-Centric Approach: A Paradigm Shift,” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, Vol 55, No 4, pp 522-530.
- Shepherd, VA (2012): “At the roots of Plant Neurobiology: A brief history of the biophysical research of JC Bose,” Science and Culture, Vol 78, No (5/6), pp 196-210.
- Stone, Christopher D (1972): “Should Trees Have Standing?: Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects,” South California Law Review, Vol 45, pp 450-501.
- Taiz, Lincoln et al (2019): “Plants Neither Possess nor Require Consciousness,” Trends in Plant Science, Vol 24, No 8, pp P677-687 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2019.05.008>.
- Tandon, Prakash Narain (2019): “Jagdish Chandra Bose and Plant Neurobiology: Part I,” Indian Journal of Medical Research, Vol 149, No 5, pp 593-599.
- Trewavas, Tony (2016): “Plant Intelligence: An overview,” BioScience, Vol 66, No 7, pp 542-551.
- Vandenbrink, Joshua P et al (2014): “Turning heads: The biology of solar tracking in sunflower,” Plant Science, Vol 224, pp 20-26.
- Venezuelan Association (2004): “Universal Declaration of Plant Rights,” 10 December <http://www.avepalmas.org/rights.htm>.
- Willemsen, Ariane (2008), “The dignity of living beings with regard to plants,” Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology ECNH, pp 1-24.
- Whelan, Daniel J (2010): Indivisible Human Rights: A History, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dire Consequences in Failing the Climate Change Goals
It is not as if they have closely missed their goals; it is as if they have not even been trying. The new Oxfam report on climate change places the blame squarely on the rich countries , the US being the worst offender.
The goal has been to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 45 percent before 2030. Instead, they are headed for an increase of 10.6 percent. As might be expected, these world’s largest economies, the G20, produce the most pollution.
On average, they emit between 7.4 and 7.7 tons of CO2 per person per year. To keep global mean temperature rise below 1.5 C above preindustrial levels as has been the goal, they need to come down to 2.9 to 3.8 tons.
The G20 and other countries will be submitting their nationally determined contributions or NDC’s at the UN Climate Summit in Dubai this November. These assessments there will reveal whether or not they are on track for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement, namely to limit temperature rise to 1.5C.
Researchers accessing G20 plans using three different methodologies found these will reduce emissions only to 6.7 to 6.9 tons per person per year on average. That is nearly double what is required.
Oxfam’s work on emissions produced by the rich and the poor find them influenced by wealth and inequality — the 125 billionaires themselves produce through their investments and activities a colossal 393 million tons each year at a 3 million ton per person average — a half million times higher than the average G20 person and a million times higher than the bottom 90 percent by global wealth.
The US leads the high income countries with the largest deficit in not meeting the goals planned emissions reduction. Its shortfall is up to 24.6 tons of CO2 equivalent per person per year. Middle income countries are led by Russia at 10. China has a high of 3.4 and India merely 0.7.
If the world is serious about global warming, it has to persuade rich countries, particularly G7 the richest, and the rest of the G20 to ramp up spending to move to low-carbon alternatives, and also increase climate finance for the poorer countries. It is the only way as these countries simply do not possess the resources otherwise.
What happens if the rich countries ignore the possibilities? Well, we have seen the news within the last year — the latest being the catastrophic floods in Libya killing at least 5,300 while an estimated 10,000 remain missing. What is unusual will become the norm as the air heats up absorbing more moisture from the oceans.
Extreme weather like hurricanes and typhoons will increase with extended seasons. Recent examples are the wildfires in Australia and Canada and the Atlantic hurricane season. The latter runs from June 1 to November 30. Closely before or after would not be exceptional but this year we experienced a named storm in January.
So if no one is doing much about climate change except talk, batten down the hatches or move away from the coast, nice as it usually is.
Nairobi’s Climate Summit Seeks External Funding Amid Geopolitical Challenges
The historic gathering on Climate Change inside Africa, clearly portrays efforts at spearheading towards finding sustainable solutions to existing challenges. But African leaders are still standing at a crossroads as they try hard to balance their geopolitical positions, this time with raising the needed funds for controlling the effects of climate change in Africa.
Majority of these African leaders consistently barked at Western and Europeans for the their excessive control, frequent interference in their internal affairs and shout over aspects of democracy, human rights and hegemony, and yet look forward for their invaluable investment in the economy.
This summit held under the theme, “Africa Climate Summit 2023: Driving Green Growth & Climate Finance Solutions for Africa and the World” attracted a host of African and external guests, and including representatives of civil society and non-state organizations. The governmental leaders met for three days while the entire week was dedicated to the current situation and potential solutions.
With high optimism, the first summit held in Nairobi, Kenya, early September was primarily to review and systematize possible options African nations have to finance climate change, and on the other way, nature and its inherent resources in the continent. Kenyan President William Ruto made the summit’s aim very clear his speech – to discuss how to fund the challenges posed by climate change.
Ruto further envisioned a “future where Africa finally steps into the stage as an economic and industrial power, an effective and positive actor on a global arena” and unreservedly boasted the availability of the young population, to take advantage of the vast renewable potential and natural resources.
Ruto’s narratives at the conference dealt with the fact that Africa is acutely vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change, and consequently made a strategic call for accelerating funding in Africa. At the end of the summit, the narratives appealing to the international community to help achieve that goal by easing the continent’s crushing debt burden and reforming the global financial system to unblock investment was finally incorporated into the final declaration.
Prior to the declaration, it was broadly noted that Africa has an “unparalleled opportunity” to benefit from the fight against global warming but needed massive investment to unlock its potential as Nairobi hosts a landmark climate summit focusing on the continent. “The overarching theme… is the unparalleled opportunity that climate action represents for Africa,” Ruto said in his opening address, while further stressing for trillions of dollars from the international community to unblock financing for Africa.
It is always puzzling, Africa has all the resources. Africa needs external funds. African leaders have savings in foreign banks. Yet, Africa is poor to the bone-marrow, complaints of dearth of finance, and despite the abundance of natural resources in the continent. In order to rebuild confidence, African Union Commission head, Moussa Faki Mahamat, was straight to the point in his demand – wielding his French tongue and some tiredness or frustration – on behalf of the 54-member states, that the international investment must be “massively scaled up to enable commitments to be turned into actions across the continent of Africa.”
While demanding sweeping changes to the global financial system, Moussa Mahamat also announced that the summit would become a regular event and be held every two years.
Among most of the speakers, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki’s remarks seemingly carried different weighty significance. “Climate change poses, by all accounts, one of the most pressing challenges of our times. Its impact in Africa will be immensely aggravated; compounded as it is by a host of other major hurdles,” he said.
“The policies we articulate, and implementation mechanisms we map out, at the individual national level will not provide the primary panacea to this global challenge,” noted Afwerki, but added that, in this context, Africa can tap and incorporate the numerous scientific measures undertaken by global players in the field to bolster its purposeful mitigation measures.
While concluding his talk at the gathering, he reminded the necessity for Africa to mobilize its own resources rather than extend hands for handouts that may aggravate the existing situation by inviting interference and corrupt practices, mobilizing inside resources will be enabling and motivating creativity at the level of the continent.
Isaias Afwerki urged everyone to not be attracted by the billions that are being promised by so called donors. Rather, better to mobilize resources and get away from this dependency that will definitely compromise everything at the level of the continent.
Despite potential internal and external hurdles to scaling up funds, one report co-authored by Executive Secretary at the UN Economic Commission for Africa, Vera Songwe, concluded that multilateral development banks’ climate finance must triple within five years, from US$60 bln to US$180 bln, to help developing economies globally cope with global warming. Annual climate finance flows in Africa stand at only US$30 billion at the moment, however.
In another report released by Oxfam, for instance, said the devastating drought has gripped Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia — which scientists say has been made more severe by climate change — as well as floods in South Sudan, have caused losses of between US$15 billion and US$30 billion in the two years to 2022, or around two to four percent of the region’s GDP.
It estimated that between 2021 and 2023, the four countries lost about US$7.4 billion in livestock alone. “Millions of already struggling people saw their animals die and lost their ability to grow, sell or eat nutritious food, plunging them into even greater poverty and hunger,” the report said.
There so many reports detailing various aspects of the climate change, specifically with regards to Africa. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) also estimates that 34 of 59 developing economies most vulnerable to climate change, many or which are in Africa, are also at a high risk of fiscal crises.
The summit has raised approximately US$23 billion in funding pledges. There are daunting challenges for the continent where hundreds of millions lack access to electricity. The oil-rich United Arab Emirates (UAE), in complete recognition of the Africa’s potential offered the financial pledge of US$4.5 billion as it competes to get hold of Africa. United States’ climate envoy John Kerry also announced US$30 million in new funding to accelerate climate-resilient food security across the continent.
United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, at African Climate Summit, pointed to an injustice burns at the heart of the climate crisis. And its flame is scorching hopes and possibilities in Africa. This continent accounts for less than four per cent of global emissions. Yet it suffers some of the worst effects of rising global temperatures: Extreme heat, ferocious floods, and tens of thousands dead from devastating droughts. The blow inflicted on development is all around with growing hunger and displacement. Shattered infrastructure. Systems stretched to the limit.
All these above aggravated by climate chaos not of Africans’ making. It is still possible to avoid the worst effects of climate change. But only with a quantum leap in climate action. The people of Africa – and people everywhere – need action to respond to deadly climate extremes.
Notwithstanding all that he mentioned above, Antonio Guterres explained that reaching these targets requires climate justice. Developed countries must present a clear and credible roadmap to double adaptation finance by 2025 as a first step towards devoting, at least, half of all climate finance to adaptation.
Referring to multinational development banks and othe foreign financiers, Antonio Guterres added in his speech: “They must keep their promise to provide $100 billion a year to developing countries for climate support. Every person on earth must be covered by an early warning system by 2027 – by implementing the Action Plan we launched last year.”
“Six out of every 10 Africans currently lack access to these systems. The Early Warning for All Africa Action Plan launched yesterday under the leadership of the African Union will be critical to addressing this need. More broadly, we need a course correction in the global financial system so that it supports accelerated climate action in the context of sustainable development. We can’t achieve one without the other,” accroding to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
It, therefore, means re-capitalizing and changing the business model of Multilateral Development Banks. This could make it possible to leverage private finance at affordable rates to support developing nations to build sustainable economies. The global financial system must be reformed to be an ally of developing nations as they turbocharge a just and equitable green transition that leaves no one behind, especially those in Africa.
But then, and but the point here is that African leaders must get down to their tasks. Interestingly, Africa produces and trades in critical minerals. Africa must be sustainable, transparent and just across every link of the supply chain, with maximum added value produced across Africa. So we are saying is that African leadership must strive to generate innovative green economies anchored in renewable power.
Without hyperbolic geopolitical slogans, now is the time to bring together African states with developed world, financial institutions and technology companies to create a true African Renewable Energy Alliance. With adequate access to financial resources at a reasonable cost and technological support, renewables could dramatically boost economies, grow new industries, create jobs and drive development – including by reaching the over 600 million Africans living without access to power.
Nevertheless, African leaders and the attendees, demand from external nations to honour long-standing climate pledges for poorer nations. Analysts in their several news reports also acknowledged that the summit unity generated momentum for making this demand. But consensus is still challenging across the diverse continent of 1.4 billion people, the 54 African leaders and the African Union and within the context of geopolitical situation around the world.
Window to reach climate goals ‘rapidly closing’
The world is not on track to meet the long-term goals set out in the Paris Agreement for limiting global temperature rise, a major UN report warned on Friday, calling for a commitment to decisive action.Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which issued the report, called for “greater ambition and accelerating action”.
“I urge governments to carefully study the findings of the report and ultimately understand what it means for them and the ambitious action they must take next. It is the same for businesses, communities and other key stakeholders.”
The report summarizes 17 key findings from technical deliberations in 2022 and 2023 on the implementation status of the Paris Agreement on climate change and its long-term goals, based on the best scientific information.
The Agreement committed all countries to limit temperature rises as close as possible to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
It found that in all areas, ranging from mitigating climate change impacts to addressing loss and damage, “much more needs to be done”.
“While there are well-known gaps, the technical findings highlighted existing and emerging opportunities and creative solutions to bridge these gaps,” UNFCCC said.
Good practices and proposals to accelerate implementation, action and support, are highlighted in all areas.
At the stocktake delegates will assess if they are collectively making progress towards meeting the climate goals – and where they are not.
Farhan Akhtar, one of the co-facilitators of the dialogue highlighted the “broad participation” of governments, experts and other key stakeholders.
“Across the discussions it was clear that the Paris Agreement has inspired widespread action that has significantly reduced forecasts of future warming. This global stocktake is taking place at a crucial moment to inspire further global action in responding to the climate crisis.”
Decisive action needed
Sultan Al Jaber, president-designate of COP28, emphasized the need to disrupt “business as usual” if the Paris Agreement is to be honoured.
For that emissions must be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030.
“That is why the COP28 Presidency has put forward an ambitious action agenda centred around fast tracking a just and well managed energy transition that leaves no one behind, fixing climate finance, focusing on people lives and livelihoods, and underpinning everything with full inclusivity,” he said.
“I believe we can deliver all of this while creating sustainable economic growth for our people, but we must urgently disrupt business as usual and unite like never before to move from ambition to action and from rhetoric to real results.”
Middle East4 days ago
Iran and Sudan’s Rapprochement in 2023: New Changes in the Regional Geopolitics of the Middle East
World News4 days ago
Foreign Affairs: Will the West abandon Ukraine?
Finance4 days ago
Why the West’s sanctions on Russia miss the mark
Europe4 days ago
Bangladesh-UK strategic dialogue: Significance in the post-Brexit era
International Law4 days ago
Democracy at Risk: The Global Challenge of Rising Populism and Nationalism
New Social Compact4 days ago
Talking tolerance in polarised societies
Finance4 days ago
Amid Worsening Food Crisis, Leaders Call to Mobilize Finance for African Agriculture
Economy3 days ago
CBDC vs Cryptocurrency: The Future of Global Financial Order