# data[].attributes.body
What did you learn from your research?
I learned several important things from my research. I learned about the disproportionate climate change effects faced by many Global South countries because they lack the infrastructure, wealth, and capacity to adapt in ways some Global North states have. Additionally, many people living in these states make their livelihoods off the land through farming, fishing, and other small community-based endeavors. When severe weather events like floods, droughts or changing weather patterns negatively impact these industries, people lose their livelihoods and can be displaced. This can further impair the economy and capacity of a state, making it even harder for them to adapt to climate change.

Additionally, I learned that much of the scientific discourse and activism around climate change centers voices from the Global North as opposed to voices from disproportionately affected regions in developing countries. This exclusion not only cuts individuals out of conversations and decision making, but it also cuts off the needs and perspectives of entire communities and states.

What do the resources demonstrate about the constraints, challenges, and achievements of international law in addressing global challenges?

One reoccurring example of the constraints of international law and cooperation is the inability to completely hold states accountable to their promises and agreements, even if those agreements are legally binding. For example, in the Paris Agreement, developed nations promised to provide a certain amount in climate finance to developing nations for mitigation and adaptation efforts by 2020. However, they did not completely fulfill this promise and developing nations are left having to try and pressure the Global North to give them funds that they already agreed to give.

Additionally, collective action problems seem inevitable when it comes to global problems that involve and affect all states. Because of their conflicting interests (economic, political, etc.), states are unable to fully realize the potential benefits of international cooperation. Instead, they block certain efforts to mandate emissions reductions (e: changing language in Glasgow Pact from "phase-out" to "phase-down" use of coal) that, if carried out, would benefit everyone.

However, the resources collected here also demonstrate the achievements of international cooperation. As is often the globalist refrain, global problems require global solutions. Only through international cooperation like the Paris Agreement and the UNFCC Conference of Parties meetings can states come together and craft solutions (climate finance, reporting requirements, etc.) that will make significant impacts to global problems. Of course, action is needed by individual states but only by cooperating together can the global problem actually be solved.

How are intergovernmental organizations involved?

Intergovernmental organizations are highly involved in addressing climate change. Specifically in addressing climate change in the Global South, IGOs like the UN have made concerted efforts to include and lift up the voices of developing states by including language like "common but differentiated responsibilities" in agreements on emissions goals. However, like with many compromises on international agreements, developing countries still feel as though their voices are not at the forefront of a conversation about the crisis they are suffering from the most. Therefore, intergovernmental organizations like the Climate Vulnerable Forum are essential in centering the voices of the most-affected nations and prioritizing actions that will best address their shared challenges.

What can your target audience do with this information to address these challenges?

The problem of climate change has been one of the areas of international cooperation where we have seen activism have an enormous impact. Activists such as Greta Thunberg and Vanessa Nakate have made significant strides in galvanizing the public around the issue of climate change and the inaction of state governments in addressing it. Individuals can similarly take on activists roles in their local communities to push for climate action from their governments. In the U.S., people can contact their elected representatives and implore them to support the United States' commitments to emissions reductions, climate finance, technology sharing, and capacity-building for the developing world. Constituents can pressure their elected officials to pass legislation and appropriate funding that will fulfill our commitments laid out in the Paris Agreement and Glasgow Pact. Individuals can also financially support NGOs who are doing similar work on a larger scale. In sum, though small-scale individual action like recycling and driving electric cars can only benefit the environment and therefore the circumstances of the Global South, only large-scale, global cooperation on the issue of climate change will make a large enough impact to aid the Global South in coping with and mitigating climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. Climate Change and the Developing World: A Disproportionate Impact

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Climate Change and the Developing World: A Disproportionate Impact

# data[].attributes.body
This report is from the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition. The report discusses the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing states. These challenges include fragility, conflict, displacement, food and water security, global health, and economic development. The report also proposes possible strategies to building climate resilience such as reducing the impact of climate crises like droughts and floods, increasing access to clean water, addressing migration, financing resilience for coasts and cities, reforestation, and predicting extreme weather. This source is useful because it provides some insight into the harmful impacts of climate change on countries in the Global South as well as some possible solutions that could be implemented by partnerships between Global South states, IGOs, and Global North states.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download the PDF
2020 tied as the hottest year ever recorded, with record-breaking extreme weather and climate-driven disasters from fires to floods to hurricanes. While global leadership on climate change will require multi-faceted policy solutions, there is consensus that extreme weather and disruption from drought, flooding, and conflicts over natural resources disproportionately affect the developing world, particularly the poor and most vulnerable including women and children. With destruction from torrential storms like Hurricane Dorian, these disruptions in the developing world impact America's long-term security and economic interests, driving mass displacement and threatening progress on preventing conflict, combating hunger, and fighting global poverty.

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to exacerbate the impact of climate-driven challenges and disrupt efforts to address them. Climate-driven disasters threaten to overwhelm local health systems at a time when they are already under extreme stress, and the costs of damage and recovery from a natural disaster when compounded with the pandemic are estimated to be as much as 20% higher than normal.

To advance U.S. interests and our nation's values, addressing these dramatic effects of climate change will require smart, strategic investments in global development by helping at-risk countries build resilience to extreme weather and adapt for the future.

The Facts: How Climate Change Disproportionately Impacts the Developing World

Throughout the developing world, the effects of climate change are already creating greater instability in fragile and emerging countries and markets:

Fragility, Conflict, and Displacement: The Pentagon has described the effects of climate change as "threat multipliers" and catalysts for conflict, and the State Department's Global Fragility Strategy identifies environmental degradation as a key driver of fragility. As an example, security experts suggest Al Qaeda has exploited openings for recruitment and influence as a result of desertification in Northwest Africa. Extreme weather has contributed to conflict and terrorism in fragile states that have led to the displacement of 80 million people from their homes, now the highest level in human history. By 2050, more than 143 million people could be driven from their homes by conflict over food and water insecurity and climate-driven natural disasters according to the World Bank. And by 2070, almost 20% of the planet could be too hot to be habitable.

Food and Water Security: Of the 124 million people worldwide who face "crisis levels" of acute food insecurity, 76% were affected by climate shocks and extremes, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, and more than half of the people in developing countries live in rural communities dependent on agriculture - a sector highly vulnerable to environmental conditions. Rising temperatures increase the costs of agricultural production and threaten biodiversity, with one million species in danger of extinction that affect crop growth, fisheries, and livestock.

Global Health: Warmer temperatures could expose as many as one billion people to deadly infectious diseases such as Zika, dengue, and chikungunya. In the U.S. alone, disease cases from mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas more than tripled from just under 30,000 to almost 100,000 a year from 2004 to 2016. A warmer climate could lead to an additional 250,000 people dying of diseases including malaria each year between 2030 and 2050, according to the World Health Organization. The Red Cross estimates that more than 50 million people around the world have been jointly affected by COVID-19 and climate change.

Economic Development: The World Bank estimates that the effects of climate change could push an additional 100 million people below the poverty line by 2030. In addition, the impact of extreme weather is resulting in $520 billion in annual consumption losses and is pushing 26 million people into poverty each year. In addition, major commercial ports in developing countries - including Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai, Guangzhou, and Dar es Salaam - face the threat of being submerged by rising sea levels, and by 2050 at least 300 million people will live in coastal areas threatened by dangerous flooding. A Stanford University study found that climate change has increased economic inequality between developed and developing nations by 25% since 1960.

Building Solutions: Creating Resilience to Climate Change

America's investments in development and diplomacy help countries adapt to climate change and build resilience, defined by USAID as the ability of communities and countries to "mitigate, adapt to and recover" from shocks, natural disasters, and conflict while reducing chronic vulnerability. These investments are essential for advancing U.S. interests and confronting the security, economic, and humanitarian consequences of climate change:

Reducing Impact of Droughts and Floods: America's global food security initiative, Feed the Future, has helped lift more than 23 million people from poverty and supports research on climate-resilient crops. As one example, East Africa's agriculture-driven economy has long been vulnerable to droughts and floods. Yet comprehensive resilience programs in Ethiopia have demonstrated that communities can weather severe droughts, while neighboring communities without interventions have seen their food security decline by 30%. In addition, these programs have provided 100,000 maize farmers with hybrid varieties that have doubled their crop yields through a partnership with DuPont Pioneer.

Increasing Access to Clean Water: As extreme droughts and water scarcity continue to rise, U.S. investments in access to safe, clean water is essential to create resilience, reduce conflict, and help communities adapt. As one example, in Cabo Verde, only 9% of poor households have access to a public water supply - conditions made even worse by a 2017 drought. The Millennium Challenge Corporation's climate-resilient development programs in the country include a nearly $40 million project to construct water infrastructure, and the program has already created more than 3,500 new connections to the water network in this water-scarce nation.

Addressing Migration: Whether from rising sea levels or resource-related conflicts, climate-driven migration will continue to increase in the coming decades. U.S. leadership and resources within the global humanitarian system will be essential to help manage and respond to the increasing flows and movements of people, along with investments to help promote stability and alternative livelihoods for communities that are permanently displaced.

Financing Resilience for Coasts and Cities: The World Bank and United Nations launched the Invest4Climate initiative to catalyze and coordinate the public and private financing needed to adapt to extreme weather. The initiative has helped city and national governments identify barriers to investment and identify potential projects to build climate resilience including preventing coastal erosion in West Africa, providing risk insurance to the Philippines to limit the costs of climate-driven disasters, and financing more sustainable cocoa production in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire.

Reforestation: The reforestation of depleted forests and woodlands around the world help build resilience to climate shocks, strengthen biodiversity, and sustain economic livelihoods. USAID's Sustainable Landscapes program has leveraged more than $500 million in investments and partnered with companies with more than $4 trillion in global sales in support of bilateral and global programs in countries like Bangladesh, Colombia, India, and Zambia.

Predicting Extreme Weather: Increasing the ability to predict extreme weather has proven to help reduce its impact on communities in the developing world. Servir, a partnership between NASA and USAID, uses satellite data to help more than 45 countries predict weather conditions and improve land use, better preparing them to prevent and respond to climate-driven instability and natural disasters. Efforts like these have led to earlier flood warnings in Bangladesh, reduced Kenya's crop losses from frost by 40%, and improved Laos's flood response efforts following a burst dam.

Public-Private Partnerships Central to Addressing Climate Change

A wide range of stakeholders including the private sector, foundations, multilateral institutions, and international NGOs are focused on addressing the effects of climate change in the developing world. Together - along with institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank - they are partnering with local, regional, and national governments to build resilient communities and foster sustainable economic growth. Examples include:

The Green Climate Fund was established in 2010 as partnership between over 190 countries that seeks to help developing countries respond to climate change, using public investment to catalyze private finance. The Fund has raised over $10 billion since 2014, and has directed resources to projects dedicated to both mitigation and adaptation. Through partnering with a number of international organizations, NGOs, and private sector companies, the Fund has helped build resilience for an estimated 350 million people worldwide. Special Climate Envoy John Kerry recently stated that the United States would recommit to the Fund as part of renewed efforts to support global climate finance.

Over 50 global business leaders - representing companies that generated more than $1.3 trillion in revenue in 2017 - released a statement in 2018 pledging their ongoing commitment to tackling climate change calling it a "major threat to our environment, societies and economy, endangering our well-being and prosperity."

Hundreds of NGOs are engaged in public-private partnerships to combat the disproportionate impact of climate change on the world's most vulnerable. This includes groups like CARE, which, as an example, has highlighted the impact of climate change on smallholder farmers - nearly half of whom are women - and worked to change laws that limit women's ownership of land and property that can prevent them from being able to feed their families in the face of more frequent droughts.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides grants to address the impacts and effects of climate change. This includes efforts to improve agricultural productivity in the face of extreme droughts and flooding, such as the Seed Systems and Varietal Improvement (SSAVI) which helps smallholder farmers to diversify their crop varieties and create more sustainable agricultural ecosystems.

The Rockefeller Foundation launched a new Climate and Resilience initiative to focus on market-changing opportunities that increase climate and resilience capital flows, building on the work of the 100 Resilient Cities initiative of which half of the cities are in the developing world.

Download the PDF

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change and the Developing World: A Disproportionate Impact - USGLC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download the PDF 2020 tied as the hottest year ever recorded, with record-breaking extreme weather and climate-driven disasters from fires to floods to hurricanes. While global leadership on climate change will require multi-faceted policy solutions, there is consensus that extreme weather and disruption from drought, flooding, and conflicts over natural resources disproportionately affect the developing world, particularly the poor and most vulnerable including women and children.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate

# data[].attributes.body
This is a coverage of a UN General Assembly meeting on October 8, 2019. Delegates discuss the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing states. This provides an important perspective from government officials of these Global South states on what their countries are facing and how the climate problems have ripple effects throughout communities. Below are some examples of negative effects of climate change on Global South states.

Botswana: negative effects of climate change are keeping the country from achieving its Sustainable Development goals + climate change-related drought it severely effecting agriculture and food security

Here we can see two negative effects of the disproportionate impact of climate change of the developing state of Botswana. First, climate change is keeping them from realizing international commitments likely because it is stifling their economy and capacity through severe weather events like drought

Tajikistan: Climate change is disproportionally burdening their developing economy + the quantity and quality of freshwater sources are being threatened by climate change

During this meeting, representatives from developing nations also highlighted their country's positive efforts to mitigating and adapting to climate change. These efforts are important to highlight because they are demonstrations of what individual developing nations can do and what they can expand upon with  enough climate financing. Some examples below:

Ethiopia: "40 Trees Per Head for New Ethiopia" project that has resulted in the planting of 4 billion new trees within 18 months.

Senegal: The state plans to reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 and become carbon neutral by 2050. Currently, their energy sector uses 30% renewable energy sources.

Malaysia: Enhancing palm oil production to make it more sustainable in efforts to prevent biodiversity loss, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and preserve wildlife habitats.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Describing climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity in their time, delegates urged the international community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve forests, monitor water sources and honour pledges made in the Paris Agreement, as the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) concluded its general debate today.

Botswana's delegate noted that the adverse effects of climate change are severely hampering many developing nations' efforts to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. His country itself is currently suffering from climate change‑related drought, which will lead to a consequent drop in agricultural production and rise in food insecurity.

Addressing these challenges, Botswana's Government is developing a climate policy and strategy and reducing greenhouse emissions 15 per cent by 2030, he said. But the country will fail to succeed in its climate efforts without partnership assistance, capacity‑building, technology transfer and financial support.

Similarly, the representative of Tajikistan noted that unprecedented climate impacts are disproportionately burdening developing countries. Moreover, the phenomenon's negative effect on quantity and quality of fresh water resources in these nations is becoming ever more apparent.

Over the past few decades, Tajikistan has seen a significant decrease in the area of its glaciers, which are of vital importance to all Central Asia, he added. Stressing the need to strengthen cooperation among countries in addressing these challenges, he underscored the need to monitor glaciers as well as other water sources and protect them for the future.

Greece's delegate lamented that climate change is not only affecting present and future generations, but is detrimentally affecting the past, history and heritage of nations. Extreme weather events and adverse climate conditions can significantly damage cultural and natural heritage sites as well as disrupt centuries‑old ways of life.

Several nations focused on measures to combat climate change, with the representative of Malaysia noting that his country is improving palm oil production to ensure it is certified sustainable by 2020. The certification clearly addresses global concerns on sustainable production of the oil, including biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions and destruction of wildlife habitats.

Urging Member States to seriously address climate change, he said all nations must fulfil their pledges to reduce carbon emissions, plant more trees and conserve forests as well as reuse and recycle.

Recognizing its responsibility as the country with the world's second largest forest and 47 per cent of Africa's forest cover, the representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo said his country is reducing CO2 emissions to mitigate climate change. In addition, it is dedicated to stabilizing the forest at 63 per cent of national territory and reducing emissions by 17 per cent between 2020 and 2030.

Ethiopia's delegate said his Government has kickstarted a "40 Trees Per Head for New Ethiopia" project, which has resulted in 4 billion trees being planted within 18 months, including over 350 million in a single day. The representative of Senegal said his country aims to reduce emissions 45 per cent by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, adding that its energy sector uses 30 per cent renewable sources.

Pointing to indiscriminate and unpredictable nature of climate change, the representative of Sri Lanka called for urgent and meaningful action to combat the scourge as outlined in the Paris Agreement.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Bangladesh, Liberia, Yemen, Guatemala, Maldives, Japan, Brazil, South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, Ghana, Albania, Turkey, Bolivia, Georgia, Romania, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Armenia, Egypt, Kuwait, Uruguay, Venezuela, Cabo Verde, Guinea, Libya, Iraq, Peru, Chile, Togo, Ecuador, Bahrain, Ireland, Nepal, Haiti, Myanmar, Tunisia, Costa Rica, Serbia, India, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Timor Leste, Cameroon and El Salvador. The Holy See, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and United Nations Environment Programme also spoke.

The Committee with meet again on Thursday, 10 October, at 10 a.m. to take up macroeconomic policy questions and financing for development.
Statements
MASUD BIN MOMEN ( Bangladesh), aligning himself with the "Group of 77" and China and the least developed countries, said his Government recognizes that "development for all" must be the motto to create a prosperous country. Exports tripled from 2005‑2006 to reach $37 billion in 2017‑2018, with per capita income increasing by 3.5 times. He noted this means Bangladesh has achieved one of the fastest poverty reduction rates in the world with a rate of 21.4 per cent, and 11.3 per cent extreme poverty. Significant progress has been made in establishing a social safety net, gender parity and a network of 18,000 community clinics. He said Bangladesh is now the world's second‑largest user of solar home systems and is building its first nuclear power plant. Having graduated from the least developed countries category, his Government aims to be a middle‑income one by 2021 and a developed country by 2041. He called for the Rohingya crisis to be resolved, as Bangladesh currently hosts 1.1 million displaced persons.

DEE-MAXWELL SAAH KEMAYAH ( Liberia) stressed that poverty remains a global challenge that negatively impacts marginalized groups, including women. The international community must also address the disastrous effects of climate change as well as ensure equitable education and learning opportunities for all. He noted that the Sustainable Development Goals summit and the High‑level Dialogue on Financing for Development took concrete steps towards financing global development goals. It is necessary to gather support for developing countries, especially those in delicate situations, in meeting agreed development targets. Achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development will depend on an enabling international environment, which facilitates means of implementation and mobilizes resources.

TALAL ALJAMALI ( Yemen), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and least developed countries, said the international community is not on the right track to implement the 2030 Agenda and must accelerate the pace so no one is left behind. He noted uneven progress among nations, and that some countries are losing gains and under‑developing due to wars and conflict. His country is in a difficult situation due to the coup by the Houthi minority against the legitimate Government. He said this has led to a decline in gross domestic product (GDP) and mass unemployment, which is exploited by militias to recruit youth. The Government is supervising financial transactions to fight money‑laundering and terror financing. He once again called upon the international community to support the Government and enhance its recovery.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE ( Sri Lanka), associating herself with the Group of 77, noted that challenges remain in meeting the Sustainable Development Goals, which have been impeded by inequality, irregular migration and slow economic growth. The looming threat of climate change has become an existential threat to several countries, including Sri Lanka, with its indiscriminate and unpredictable nature. She called for urgent and meaningful action to combat the scourge in line with the terms of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Noting that the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)has been a strong partner in Sri Lanka's efforts to meet agreed development goals, she said this has included assistance in developing national data collection. Stressing that the success of the 2030 Agenda lies in the ability to mobilize resources, she added that official development assistance (ODA) plays an important role, urging Member States to abide by their commitments.

LUIS LAM ( Guatemala), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the Like‑minded Group of Supporters of Middle‑Income Countries, said herculean efforts must be deployed to mobilize the four pillars of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Many challenges transcend national boundaries, including climate change, trade and migration. He said the United Nations development system must be restructured to better support developing countries, and country team functioning and resident coordinators must also be enhanced. He said the concept of sustaining peace will act as a propellant in achieving results.

ABDUL GHAFOOR MOHAMED ( Maldives) said that access to financing for development remains a significant concern for his country in achieving development goals. Four years on from the adoption of the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which was designed to finance the transformative 2030 Agenda, small island developing States continue to struggle to finance basic infrastructure needs without paying excessive interest rates on some of those borrowings. In the Maldives, managing the debt of over 70 per cent of its GDP is extremely challenging, although promising in the face of economic and social progress. Effective management of fiscal and public debt is a priority, given the tightening global financial arena. The Government is committed to undertaking significant tax reforms and fighting corruption to minimize public debt.

TOSHIYA HOSHINO ( Japan) said his Government's first priority is health. Having organized the Group of Friends of Universal Coverage, his country believes all people should have access to essential health services. He also stated hazard risk reduction is an overarching means for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals as disasters impede progress. As climate change has manifested more rapidly than expected, his country stands on the front lines of global decarbonization through measures including innovation and accelerating a virtuous cycle of environment and growth. He said financing for development and innovation are indispensable to reaching the Goals, and also stressed the importance of science, technology and innovation in the sustainable development agenda.

PHILIP GOUGH ( Brazil) stressed that ODA remains the main channel of development cooperation, urging Member States to meet their commitments in full. He also stressed the importance of private partners in helping implement and finance development, noting that the Second Committee will consider for the first time a resolution on investment needed to finance the Sustainable Development Goals, which Brazil will facilitate. His country will also support Committee efforts to combat illicit financial flows, which must be confronted through cooperation between source, transit and destination countries. He added that enhanced productive capacity in developing countries is also essential for meeting development goals. Massive agricultural subsidies in developed countries must be curbed, which not only jeopardize the environment and cause land degradation, but also block the development of robust agricultural sectors in the developing world.

XOLISA M. MABHONGO ( South Africa) noted significant shortfalls despite gains in achieving the Goals. "We are running out of time in meeting this deadline", he said. He noted the need for unprecedented funding of $2.5 trillion in developing countries to realize the 2030 Agenda. However, he noted all development is threatened if the planet is irreversibly compromised by climate change. He said multilateralism and a rules‑based system represent the best path to an equitable world order. He also stressed the importance of rules‑based international trade under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), prioritizing Africa's interests in particular, and the central roles of South‑South, triangular and North‑South cooperation.

MARIA THEOFILI ( Greece) said the urgent need to address human‑induced climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the time, affecting the present and future as well as the past, history and heritage. Extreme weather events and adverse climate conditions have the potential to significantly damage cultural and natural heritage sites as well as to disrupt century‑old ways of life and intangible cultural heritage. Turning to social areas, she said poverty eradication, addressing inequalities and providing decent work conditions are central but can only be achieved by a shift towards a more inclusive model of development. The international community must promote inclusive and equitable growth, which creates jobs, reduces inequalities and gender‑based discrimination and supports inclusion for immigrants, refugees and other vulnerable groups without harming the environment.

GEBEYEHU GANGA ( Ethiopia), aligning himself with the Group of 77, the African Group, least developed countries and landlocked developing countries, said with the clock ticking, the international community must urgently accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Developed States should redouble their commitment to providing financial, technology and capacity‑building for developing countries. He noted Ethiopia is expected to be among the world's fastest growing countries in 2019 but still faces challenges. His Government has made job creation for youth the epicentre of its reform programme and is increasing the manufacturing sector to attract increased domestic and foreign direct investment (FDI). Ethiopia is also allocating over 60 per cent of the national budget to pro‑poor sectors, as poverty reduction is one of its top priorities. On climate change, his Government implemented "40 Trees Per Head for New Ethiopia", which resulted in 4 billion trees being planted within 18 months, including over 350 million in a single day.

SYED M. HASRIN TENGKU ( Malaysia), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the Association of Southeast Asian (ASEAN), said his country has taken comprehensive measures to ensure its economic development comes with no undue sacrifice of its natural resources. By implementing programmes for poverty eradication, forest management and protection of the country's rich biodiversity, it has worked to ensure that economic development and environmental conservation go hand in hand. Unfortunately, despite Malaysia' efforts as one of the world's most biodiverse nations, it is being unfairly accused off putting the need for development before that of its forests. Noting that Malaysia's palm oil industry has been developed sustainably and responsibly, he said the country has taken steps to improve production methods in ensuring that its production is certified sustainable by 2020. This certification wholly and clearly addresses global concerns on the sustainable production of palm oil, including that of biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions and destruction of wildlife habitats. Urging all Member States to seriously address climate change, he said all nations must fulfil their pledges to reduce carbon emission, plant more trees and conserve forests, reuse and recycle.

LAZARUS O. AMAYO ( Kenya), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, noted climate change is an existential threat to future generations and sustainable development. He said it costs Kenya approximately 3 per cent of GDP annually, has impoverished millions and is quickly reversing gains against hunger. He stated the vast majority of developing country populations continue to be left behind. He noted domestic resource mobilization remains Kenya's main source of income to finance the Goals, representing 70 per cent of its resource base. As an agriculture‑based economy, he said his Government is concerned with the continued rise in world hunger. Agriculture accounts for 26 per cent of Kenya's GDP. He noted that harnessing science, technology and innovation are crucial to national development agendas and bridging the digital divide through technology transfer. In that regard, information and communications technology (ICT) remain integral to Kenya's development strategy.

ALEJANDRA GONZALEZ ( Mexico) said the goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda must guide and shape the Second Committee's work. Many people still live in poverty or are suffering from inequity and exclusion. The international community must develop a multidimensional focus on its attempts to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. Development activities must be planned appropriately and resources for those in most need of them optimized. Mexico is working with several regional Governments on a comprehensive development plan to tackle the root causes of migration. Adding that collective endeavours mentioned in the Paris Agreement are insufficient, she said the fight against climate change needs new momentum.

PAUL EMPOLE ( Democratic Republic of the Congo), aligning himself with the Group of 77, the African Group and least developed countries, said despite commitments at the highest level, almost 1 billion go hungry worldwide and 118 million live in extreme poverty. With 120 million hectares of arable land, and also 53 per cent of Africa's freshwater reserves, his country can play a key role as a vector for the continent's development, unleashing its agricultural potential. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has a vast emergency community development programme, multisectoral and integrated, to combat inequality and provide the population with services especially through rural hydroelectric power. However, his Government is also addressing the inefficiencies in its archaic agricultural sector. He stated that his country is reducing CO2 emissions and working to mitigate climate change, recognizing its responsibility as the country with the world's second largest forest, at least 10 per cent of the world's forest cover and 47 per cent of that in Africa. His Government is dedicated to stabilizing it at 63 per cent of its national territory and reducing emissions by 17 per cent between 2020 and 2030.

MAHMADAMIN MAHMADAMINOV ( Tajikistan), describing climate change as one of the greatest challenges of the times, said its unprecedented impacts disproportionately burden developing countries. Its negative impact on quantity and quality of fresh water resources becomes ever more apparent. Over the past decades, Tajikistan registered a significant decrease in the area of glaciers, which are of vital importance for all of Central Asia. He stressed the need to strengthen cooperation among countries in addressing the consequences of natural hazards through development of preventive measures and establishment of relevant funds for rendering assistance to countries in need. It is also essential to enhance the monitoring of glaciers, snow and other water sources and take measures to protect them for future generations.

MARTHA A. POBEE ( Ghana), aligning herself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said developing countries strive to raise their populations out of poverty amid continued challenges and multiple impactful mega‑trends including climate change, affecting food security and water availability. Collective efforts and innovative partnerships between Governments, business and the financial sector must work together to meet the investment requirement of $5 to $7 trillion for achieving the Goals. As a corollary, she stressed the importance of fighting illicit financial flows from developing countries. She said a rules‑based multilateral trading system to help developing countries broaden their export base and build their economies, and technology transfer must be enhanced as well. She noted financial inclusion is the key to poverty reduction and sustainable development in the most deprived communities and sectors of society.

ENIAN LAMCE ( Albania) emphasized his Government's focus on education, which is of paramount importance for future generations. Some 25 public and private universities and faculties in Albania signed an agreement committing to the Sustainable Development Goals and the country's Civil Society Organizations Council approved a public statement on implementing and monitoring of the Goals. Regarding women's empowerment and gender equality, Albania has marked significant progress, ensuring women's full and effective participation in leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life.

RAZIYE KOCYIGIT GRBA ( Turkey) said the United Nations has taken a bold and decisive step towards poverty eradication by introducing a major reform of its development system. Affirming Turkey's support for those efforts, including the new resident coordinator system, she said the concept of sustainable development has been enshrined in her country's policies since 1996. Turkey - with a young population - has made progress in all three dimensions of sustainable development and taken steps towards eradicating poverty, reducing inequality and protecting vulnerable groups. Among other things, it achieved progress in providing better quality, broader and more accessible public services, particularly education and health care. Policies are also in place to reduce interregional infrastructure disparities and promote inclusive access to technology across the country. Noting that Turkey is one of the countries most affected by climate change to date, she said her delegation along with Kenya is co‑leading efforts to recognize and strengthen the role of cities in global adaptation and mitigation efforts. The Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries - aimed at helping countries achieve the 2030 Agenda - also opened in Turkey in June.

LILIANA OROPEZA ( Bolivia) said her country has tripled its GDP in little more than a decade. In so doing, it has been able to reduce extreme poverty by 23 per cent, which has significantly decreased inequality as well. The higher GDP has also allowed Bolivia to raise the national minimum wage, increase access to drinking water, reduce infant mortality and increase life expectancy. Adding that climate change is one of most significant crises in today's world, she emphasized that the world must take action to combat it now through serious, tangible and ambitious goals.

SALOME SUPATASHVILI ( Georgia) recalled that her country has witnessed significant progress putting its economy on a sustainable development path in recent years. Implementing structural reforms supporting economic liberalization, trade facilitation, access to finance and an attractive business climate have resulted in tangible improvements for Georgia's competitiveness. As such, Georgia strives to align its national policies with the Goals of the 2030 Agenda, with a national council coordinating efforts across sectors. Voluntary national reviews have proved valuable in creating systems needed for Goals implementation. In terms of climate change, Georgia is committed to reducing its adverse effects and is taking concrete actions. Currently, the Government is updating its nationally determined contribution in parallel with elaborating the Climate Action Plan 2021‑2030. "Georgia is committed to a holistic approach to climate governance and to integrating climate awareness in all public sectors," she emphasized.

ION I. JINGA ( Romania) said it is crucial that developed and developing countries take concrete action to implement the Sustainable Development Goals. The overall traditional funding continues to be lower than some years ago due to the global economic and trade slowdown. Moreover, natural hazards have had a heavy impact on small, vulnerable and highly indebted economies. Romania is focused on fighting poverty by mobilizing both private and public funds. It remains committed to the Paris Agreement and to curbing climate change and pollution. "Our objective is to reach, by 2050, a society in which economic, social and environmental policies are interconnected and designed to ensure sustainable development, high living standards and quality of environment," he said. Transformation towards a sustainable and resilient society requires a continuous adaptation of policies, resources and taking care of all individuals and communities, starting with the most vulnerable - women, children, elderly, young people and persons with disabilities. Romania is also focused on improving access to education and health care and remains dedicated to partnering with the private sector, local communities and the transport, agriculture and commerce sectors.

ABDOULAYE BARRO ( Senegal), aligning himself with the Group of 77, the African Group and the least developed countries, said his Government continues to implement the 2030 Agenda in connection with its own five‑year plan covering manifold sectors. He noted the public policy of social inclusion covering such initiatives as providing equipment for universal health coverage for rural women. He stressed the importance of ensuring tangible results in combating climate change, with Senegal aiming to reduce emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That policy is represented in Senegal's energy sector which uses 30 per cent renewable sources. He noted Senegal will host the next water summit in 2021.

ARMAN ISSETOV ( Kazakhstan) said it fully recognizes that all countries in special situations, such as least developed, landlocked developing and small island developing States, face many common obstacles, which make reaching sustainable development targets a greater uphill task. Such challenges as climate change, commodity dependency and lack of economic diversification, data limitations, debt sustainability and ICT serve to unite the three groups of countries for mutual support and solidarity. These issues are further related to the adverse effects of a global economic crisis, thereby preventing equal participation in the global economy and resulting in small scales of economy with high trade costs.

JEAN-LAURENT IMBERT ( Monaco) addressed climate change, welcoming the work of the nature‑based solutions coalition and citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which recently presented a report calling for resolute action and exposing the risks of tardiness. Monaco aims to reduce emissions by 50 per cent by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 and plans to replenish the Green Climate Fund by €3 million by 2022. Stating that the Second Committee must set the standard in achieving the 2030 Agenda, he noted a growing call for votes on resolutions. With young people assembling worldwide clamouring for results, it is Member States' duty to overcome their divisions.

MHER MARGARYAN ( Armenia) stressed the importance of human capital in the area of development, which should ensure the participation of women and youth. He also emphasized that the needs of people in conflict areas should be addressed in their efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda. He added that his country is committed to its partnership with the United Nations development system, as it has embarked on the next stage of cooperation with a new generation of country teams. Armenia is working to ensure the compatibility and coherence of its national priorities with the Sustainable Development Goals, with a focus on the strong impact of innovation in advancing the country's "smart" development.

SHEYAM EL-GARF ( Egypt), aligning herself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said her Government is facing the challenges of climate change and demographic growth. Noting the Sahel and Egypt face water issues, which determines the very existence of humankind, she said access to water is a human right. She called on the international community to protect transboundary water courses and the rights of all States sharing the same basin. Otherwise, there will be ramifications for international peace and security. She noted her Government works to promote economic integration objectives and foster inter‑African trade. She stated reaching the sustainable development agenda requires genuine effort, and the Committee provides great leverage therein. She expressed hope that all Member States will engage in constructive negotiations with an open mind, with high ambitions for solutions to common challenges. Development is not just a human right but a sine qua non in promoting progress.

ABDULLAH AL-SHARRAH ( Kuwait), aligning himself with the Group of 77, noted the need for a new resident coordinator system. He cited the importance of implementing the 2030 Agenda according to the national priorities of every country. Citing the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, he said all States must remain acutely aware of the importance of working shoulder to shoulder for mutually beneficial results. Although it is a high‑income State, Kuwait understands the importance of forging partnerships in both the South and North. To that end, his Government has provided assistance to 107 countries to help them achieve 2030 Agenda and calls for developed countries to fulfil their commitments to provide 0.7 per cent of gross national income in ODA.

COLLEN V. KELAPILE ( Botswana) said his country believes that climate change is one of the greatest threats facing the world today. For many countries, its adverse impacts severely undermine the ability to achieve sustainable development. Like several other countries in its region, Botswana has declared 2019 as a drought year. Such climate change‑related impacts manifest themselves through a significant decline in agricultural production and associated increased food insecurity due to acute water shortages. As part of its response, the Government has taken steps to address the challenges by recently developing a climate policy and strategy and further committed to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15 per cent by 2030. However, the country cannot succeed without the assistance of partnerships and needed capacity‑building. Both facilitation of transfer of technology, including through South‑South and triangular cooperation, as well as support with climate finance are key to Botswana's success.

MATIAS PAOLINO ( Uruguay), aligning himself with the Group of 77, said his Government believes environmental degradation threatens the world's very survival, and it is therefore crucial to make further progress under the Paris Agreement. In addition, he said the United Nations must work under the principle of universality, so development is shared by all States. The international community must analyse the financial situation of States excluded from ODA due to biased categorization, as has affected Uruguay, which has been categorized among middle‑income countries. He said his country's economy is in transition and will continue to evaluate its financing requirements beyond per capita measurements.

PEDRO B. ANGELERI ( Venezuela), stressing the importance of multilateralism, said nations must work hand in hand if the international community wishes to remain on target for the 2030 Agenda and ensure economic growth. In Venezuela, the Sustainable Development Goals are strongly linked to national policies, programmes and projects. He said his country rejects the enactment of unilateral coercive measures, especially in multilateral trading spheres, as they breach the Charter of the United Nations and international law, while also stymying full achievement of economic development. Furthermore, they hinder normal political, economic and social development, which denies Venezuelan nationals from enjoying their human rights, having the same effects as a war against men, women and children. Concluding, he stressed the need to usher in a fair, multilateral trading system, with undifferentiated treatment among nations.

JOSÉ LUIS FIALHO ROCHA ( Cabo Verde), associating himself with the Group of 77, the African Group and the Alliance of Small Island States, said the financing issue is how to fill the gap of $2.5 trillion required for full implementation of the Goals. As a middle‑income country, he said his State and others in that category are deprived of concessional financing and deserve full recognition and inclusion under the United Nations system, with access to ODA and other innovative financing. He urged partners to explore innovative forms of debt relief. He said the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action Pathway (Samoa Pathway) is falling short of its goals, and there must be action to help small island developing States access more financing and be more resilient to external shocks and overcome the constraints upon them. He said he remains confident in ability of the Committee to leverage the Samoa Pathway while helping countries like his reach their full development.

ALLASANE CONTE ( Guinea), noting that all recently released studies on implementation of the 2030 Agenda show that it is taking place at a slow pace, stressed that "time is ticking". There is an urgent need to act quickly on the elimination of poverty and hunger and to combat climate change. He noted that since 1950, climate change has been a consequence of man‑made activity. To reverse this trend, the international community must step up implementation of the 2030 Agenda, ensuring that no one is left behind. The Government of Guinea has a 2016‑2020 development plan to facilitate sustained growth and generate both wealth and employment, which reflects regional plans.

OMAR ANNAKOU ( Libya), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said a number of challenges including weak economic growth and youth unemployment prevent achievement of sustainable development. Countries emerging from or in the grip of conflict, such as his, must be prioritized. He called for the international community to help his Government to establish stability throughout the country and counter activities by some States that fuel the internal conflict, breaching Security Council resolutions. There can be no security without development and vice versa. He said Libya cannot secure its borders, leading to illicit migration and organized crime, especially given its status as a transit country. He called upon neighbouring States to secure their own borders and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to investigate financing of groups that exploit youth and engage in human trafficking. He stated $100 billion leaves Africa every year, and some Member States refuse to allow for transfer of those funds, calling for international mechanisms to counter money laundering.

FIRAS AL-HAMMADANY ( Iraq), aligning himself with the Group of 77, said his country has ushered in structural reforms that go hand in hand with internationally agreed goals. He stressed that the international community must form partnerships with developing countries if those nations are to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Further, all countries must meet their commitments with respect to ODA, which is vitally needed for work on infrastructure that has been damaged by terrorism and conflict. Iraq is facing significant challenges due to terrorism, which impacts and erodes economic activity and has adverse effects on all facets of development. Terrorism greatly hinders implementation of the 2030 Agenda, as funds that could go to development are allocated to the effects of terrorism.

LUIS UGARELLI ( Peru), aligning himself with the Group of 77, said his Government has incorporated the Goals into its national development plans. Peru is committed to a multilateral trade system based on rules and represented and embodied by the World Trade Organization (WTO). His Government prioritizes the need to ensure all are less vulnerable to climate change. As one of the 10 mega‑diverse countries of world, Peru has witnessed a disproportionate level of damage due to climate change, including in the Amazon region. His country is particularly vulnerable to that damage and he therefore called upon Member States to help strengthen the disaster risk reduction framework.

MILENKO ESTEBAN SKOKNIC TAPIA ( Chile), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the Like‑minded Group of Supporters of Middle‑Income Countries, said the international community must step up its efforts to achieve more ambitious results in ensuring sustainable development. Chile has been making various efforts to combat climate change, including cutting down its carbon emissions and boosting forestation. Success in this area will depend on the unity and cooperation of all, as climate action must be taken at the global level. He noted that the 2030 Agenda is transformative and cannot be realized without international cooperation. He also stressed the importance of an international rules‑based trading system, which would benefit all without preferential treatment.

ESSOHANAM PETCHEZI ( Togo), aligning himself with the Group of 77, the African Group and the Group of Least Developed Countries, stressed that 780 million people live beneath the poverty threshold, including those living in extreme poverty, most without access to drinking water and decent work. He said national development gains remain tenuous and prospects are disheartening, affected by isolationism, trade wars and protectionism. He cited the $2.5 trillion necessary to achieve the Goals, some of which depends on innovative international partnerships. He also noted the risks of decreasing ODA and increasing debt in developing countries that shoulder the effects of climate change. It is likewise crucial to address and counter tax evasion, which undermines his continent's development efforts.

ESTEBAN CADENA DUARTE ( Ecuador), associating himself with the Group of 77 and the Like‑minded Group of Supporters of Middle‑Income Countries, pointed to numerous opportunities and challenges at the global level, stressing that multilateralism is crucial in tackling them. Adding that Earth is a common home, he said the international community must work together in dealing with environmental issues like biodiversity, plastic pollution and carbon emissions. It must make full use of the well of culture and human talent at the world's disposal. In addition, the international community must resolve the problems of financing and creating enabling environments in reaching globally agreed goals. An attempt must also be made to broaden global economic governance and develop responsible economic and fiscal policies in an integration‑based approach.

MAY MUFEEZ ( Bahrain) said her country takes pride in its rich sustainable development experience, in line with a Constitution that guarantees basic services to all citizens. Bahrain has signed a strategic partnership agreement with United Nations agencies and allocates 32 per cent of its budget for education and social security. Her Government has included 78 per cent of the Goals in its action plan. She noted Bahrain has completely eradicated illiteracy and bridged the gender gap. Prioritizing housing, her Government is building decent housing for more than 36,000 low‑income households and has partnered with UNDP to construct five sustainable cities under strict heating and insulation standards.

MICHAEL TIERNEY ( Ireland) stressed the importance of achieving peace and prosperity without further destruction of the natural environment. The international community must step up its efforts, using the Second Committee to build momentum in reaching development goals. He noted the particular challenges of small island developing States, least developed countries and landlocked developing countries, adding that the Committee must work towards a successful least developed country summit in 2020. Emphasizing also that climate change is already destroying the ecosystem and threatening oceans, the water supply and food security, he said the work of the Committee is integral to achieving sustainable development. As such, it must ensure all voices are heard to produce the best global outcomes for all.

AMRIT BAHADUR RAI ( Nepal), associating himself with the Group of 77, the Group of Least Developed Countries and the Group of Landlocked Developing Countries, said global peace and prosperity will only be possible when millions of people come out of poverty. National ownership and leadership are essential for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals, but a robust international partnership is critical for success, especially for countries in special situations on the bottom rung of the development ladder. "Globalization has worked for a few countries, but not for all," he said, citing the absence of inclusion, equity and social justice. Warning that the benefits of technological breakthroughs risk being spread unevenly, he called for a multilateral dialogue to establish normative frameworks on digital cooperation. He went on to say that Nepal, a country of snow‑capped mountains, is a climate change hotspot, with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development forecasting that that one‑third of glaciers in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region will melt away for the end of the century even if global warming is kept to 1.5°C. A robust response is required, he said, appealing for more accessible climate finance for the neediest countries.

WILLY LOUIS ( Haiti), aligning himself with the Group of 77, the Group of Least Developed Countries, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the Alliance of Small Island States, noted 55 per cent of the global population have no social protection and 736 million lived in extreme poverty worldwide in 2015. He further observed that 821 million suffered malnutrition in 2017, and two‑thirds of extremely poor workers are in the agricultural sector. Furthermore, 750 million people are still illiterate, two‑thirds of them women. He stressed that the international community must adopt a holistic approach to sustainable development, as the less‑developed countries shoulder the effects of climate change. He called upon the Second Committee to therefore play a crucial role in mobilizing sufficient resources to achieve the Goals and leave no one behind.

HMWAY HMWAY KHYNE ( Myanmar), associating herself with the Group of 77, ASEAN and the Group of Least Developed Countries, said the outlook for the global economy is far from being satisfactory and, given the current pace, hopes for realizing the Sustainable Development Goals remain elusive. Collaborative partnerships must be forced to address deep structural impediments to economic growth in least developed countries alongside the traditional challenges of underdevelopment and low levels of human development. She noted the absence of substantial increases in ODA and called on members of WTO to fully implement its least‑developed-country specific provisions. Peace and national reconciliation are the top priority for Myanmar, where the Government is undertaking reforms to remove economic distortions. Turning to climate change, she emphasized that Myanmar is among the world's most disaster‑prone countries, with recent torrential rains triggering landslides and flash flooding in several parts of the country. She underscored its commitment to the Paris Agreement, adding that today's climate problems require international cooperation within a solid framework.

KAOUTHAT CHELBI ( Tunisia), aligning herself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, said international cooperation must be bolstered, along with multilateralism and collective solidarity in achieving the Goals. Her Government is still battling poverty in landlocked regions and remote areas and has enacted a law on social equality to benefit the marginalized. She noted Tunisia was among the first States to sign and ratify Paris Agreement. Her Government treats human development as a priority, focusing on areas including education for both girls and boys and access to modern digital technology. She said development gains to date are well and good, but ODA must be stepped up to achieve the 2030 Agenda. Also, middle‑income countries must be given priority along with those in a transitional phase.

RODRIGO A. CARAZO ( Costa Rica), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the Like‑minded Group of Supporters of Middle‑Income Countries, said not all human beings enjoy the same opportunities and inclusive sustainable development. His Government believes climate action must go hand in hand with preserving ecosystems, and seeks to create a modern, green, emission‑free economy that can meet the opportunities of the digital age while making sustainable use of its natural resources. He said purely macroeconomic indicators are not sufficient to analyse or account for an array of challenges affecting less‑developed countries in their quest for sustainable development. The fourth industrial revolution and efforts to decarbonize the economy require rethinking how those systems function. He noted the unbridled arms race is an example of diversion of valuable resources.

IVA JEMUOVIC ( Serbia) said her country has presented it first voluntary national review on the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals during the 2019 High‑level Political Forum. This vision of a sustainable future, shared by children and youth, makes up the report's central part, because that segment of today will be the decision makers in 2030. Local communities are also highlighted in the report as they will be the places where most decisions are made. Serbia needs to ensure that everyone is given equal opportunities to develop full personal and professional potential. To address climate change, Serbia has ratified the Paris Agreement and was among the first countries to submit its intended nationally determined contributions committing to a 9.8 per cent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions until 2030, compared to 1990. Her country is also preparing a long‑term strategy and action plan to address climate change, in cooperation with the European Union. Serbia has begun a process of comprehensive economic reforms and is ready to join all partners, including organizations and agencies of the United Nations system, civil society, the private sector and other stakeholders, to develop the best solutions to deal with issues facing the region and the international community.

SIDDHARTH MALIK ( India) said that his country is on the right trajectory to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and implement the 2030 Agenda. His country volunteered a contribution to the special purpose trust fund for the new resident coordinator system. Under India's National Mission on Financial Inclusion, more than 370 million bank accounts have been opened, a record number. In addition, the Clean India Mission has built more than 110 million toilets in just five years, he said. The country plans to become a leader in renewable energy and has introduced several new initiatives for clean, green energy. He added that it has increased the total area that would be restored from its land degradation status from the earlier target of 21 million hectares to 26 million hectares between now and 2030. It has the cheapest rates of data services in the world and is the world's third largest start up nation. India also established the India UN Development Fund to work with fellow developing countries by providing support to projects that aim to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. In approximately two years, the Fund has been able to develop 38 projects in 36 partnering countries.

EIMAN ALNAQBI ( United Arab Emirates), associating herself with the Group of 77, said the human value of development must be strengthened. The United Arab Emirates, which will host Expo 2020, plays a strategic role as one of the main global donors for development, channelling $3.8 billion into projects in several countries in 2018. She added that her country also contributes to promoting digital technology as a tool for implementing the 2030 Agenda. With climate change becoming a major threat, the international community must roll up its sleeves and get to work to prepare for climate phenomena, she said.

BAKHTIYOR IBRAGIMOV ( Uzbekistan) said that during the current session, Member States from Central Asia will table a draft resolution in the Committee aimed at facilitating the region's unique tourism potential. Tourism has the potential to contribute to all the Goals, particularly Goal 8 on decent work and economic growth and Goal 12 on responsible consumption and production. Sustainable tourism, including ecotourism, is a cross‑cutting activity that can help reduce poverty, advance economic growth and empower women, who make up 70 per cent of the workforce in the tourism sector, he said.

SEBASTIANA BARROS ( Timor-Leste), associating herself with the Group of 77, the Group of Least Developed Countries and the Alliance of Small Island States, said climate‑proofing investments and the promotion of climate adaptation are crucial for her country. The goal is for 50 per cent of domestically‑produced energy to come from solar power, natural gas and other sustainable sources by 2030. However, global action is needed to combat the impact of climate change of small island developing States, particularly to offset their rising debt burden. Debt sustainability should be a shared responsibility, she said, calling on the international community to work towards a consensus on responsible lending and borrowing and to consider such innovations as debt for climate swaps.

MEZANG AKAMBA ( Cameroon), aligning himself with the Group of 77 and the African Group, recalled the importance of revitalizing the global partnership, especially with those who are most vulnerable. He stated the need for strategic partnerships for development financing. His Government stresses the need to counter illicit financial flows and restore funds to the countries of origin. It is important to reinforce local Governments and institutions, especially involving women, youth and the marginalized. Aligning with the goals of Vision 2035, the 2030 Agenda and Africa 2062, he expressed the desire to live in a democratic and united country in all its diversity. His Government is addressing education and inequality, having established a programme of social networks for the marginalized and increased State employee salaries. He stated the major priority of countering Boko Haram and the ravages of the terror group. Pointing to the crises in north‑western and south‑western Cameroon, with separatist groups striving to destabilize the country, he said the Government has exercised restraint and aims for broad participation in by all strata of society in restabilizing the regions.

WILLIAM HERRERA ( El Salvador), aligning himself with the Group of 77, noted that access to concessional financing decreases as countries' incomes increase, while they are unable to access sufficient financing from other sources. He encouraged multilateral development banks to advance progressive policies. Calling for transparent indicators to measure development beyond per capita income, he said those new indicators must acknowledge poverty in all its forms, as well as structural shortcomings. He noted the importance of South‑South and triangular cooperation, which must be strengthened. The global trade system must be rules‑based and equitable, and ensure economies complement each other, with public‑private partnerships. As Central America is acutely vulnerable to natural and human‑caused disasters, it is important to strengthen measures to mitigate the effects of climate change under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility.

FREDERICK HANSEN, observer for the Holy See, said that his delegation welcomes the extensive scope of issues discussed in the Second Committee and the growing attention given to sustainable, equitable and integral development. He cited Pope Francis's statement that a "reductive vision of the human person opens the way to the growth of injustice, social inequality and corruption". He also said that to advance the work of the United Nations, including the General Assembly, each of the six Main Committees must remain focused on its respective discussions and draft resolutions. Duplicating topics in various Committees impedes progress. The specific considerations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the meaning of 'rights', are best left to the discussions in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Issues).

MARCO TOSCANO-RIVALTA, United Nations Office for Disaster Relief Reduction, said the first four years of implementation of the Sendai Framework demonstrated that investing in disaster risk reduction pays off. However, risk‑informed policies and investments remain the exception and not the rule. He stressed the need for policy and programme coherence between such areas as disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change. Any trade‑offs between the Goals must be disaster‑risk informed, he said, adding that enhanced international cooperation and solidarity are not only critical, but also the only way forward.

JAMIL AHMAD, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), said the level and intensity of global environmental challenges remain daunting. The health of the planet is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate with serious consequences for the poorest people and regions. In such a context, a shift to nature‑based solutions will be crucial. "Time is short, but we have time to act," he said, describing the 2030 Agenda as an effective framework that can be achieved through partnership. He went on to say that collaboration within the United Nations system on environmental questions can be improved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unprecedented Impacts of Climate Change Disproportionately Burdening Developing Countries, Delegate Stresses, as Second Committee Concludes General Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Describing climate change as one of the greatest threats facing humanity in their time, delegates urged the international community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve forests, monitor water sources and honour pledges made in the Paris Agreement, as the Second Committee (Economic and Financial) concluded its general debate today.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
3. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change

# data[].attributes.body
This scientific journal article explores the connection between responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) that contribute to climate change and burden borne by climate change, by state. In sum, the authors conclude that there is significant inequality between high emitting states and climate-vulnerable states. Additionally, the authors find that this inequality is likely to increase by 2030. This information is especially relevant when considering which states should take the lead on climate change mitigation efforts, funding adaptation, sharing technology, and climate finance. Below are some key statistics and findings from this journal article:

20 of the 36 countries with the most emission are the least climate-vulnerable while 11 of the 17 countries with the lowest or moderate emissions are the most climate-vulnerable

By 2030, the amount of acutely vulnerable countries is expected to rise, especially for island states and for African states

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

The current generation is the first to feel the effects of anthropogenic climate change1,2. Despite their well-known harmful impacts to the world's climate system1,3, greenhouse gases (GHG) are deliberately emitted by countries to drive economic growth and enhance human wellbeing4. Spatially localised environmental issues, such as city air pollution5, may result from high GHG emissions, but the most damaging and long lasting consequence, that of global climate change6, is not constrained within the border of the emitting country1. Rather, by polluting the Earth's atmosphere with GHG emissions through fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and agricultural activities, emitting countries are degrading the world's climate system, a common resource shared by all biodiversity, including people7,8.

Because the impacts of GHG emissions can be felt beyond a country's border and the impacts of climate change on countries are highly variable, there is potential for some emitters to contribute more or less to the causes of climate change than is proportionate to their vulnerability to its effects9,10,11. This inequity has not gone unnoticed in international climate negotiations or global reporting1,3. As far back as 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities", in which countries have a common responsibility in reducing GHG emissions, but historic emissions and differences in current development levels mean that countries have different levels of emissions reduction obligations9. Both of the previous IPCC Assessment Reports have acknowledged the inequity in the causes and effects of climate change1,12 although operationalising the principle has proved difficult13. This is primarily because developing and developed countries continue to disagree over the extent of each other's responsibilities13,14. One major impediment to resolving such debates is a poor quantitative understanding of the magnitude of the global inequity in emissions and impacts. 'Free rider' countries contribute disproportionately to global GHG emissions with only limited vulnerability to the effects of the resulting climate change, while 'forced rider' countries are most vulnerable to climate change but have contributed little to its genesis15,16. This is an issue of environmental equity on a truly global scale17.

Here, we measure the current pattern of global climate change equity and assess whether the situation will improve or worsen by 2030, using data on GHG emissions17 and newly available national climate change vulnerability assessments18. We address the lack of a contemporary, qualitative assessment of global climate equity that incorporates key variables. Previous studies have been limited to CO ₂ emissions datasets, omitting the most potent and long lasting GHGs1,6,16 and used vulnerability variables that do not capture the complexity of climate change threats and cannot be forecasted. Here, we use the most recently available datasets based on comprehensive national vulnerability assessments and comprehensive GHG emissions data to produce an easily replicable snapshot of the relationship between countries' GHG emissions and their vulnerability to the negative effects of climate change17,18 and forecast this to 2030. We employ economic metrics, the Gini and Robin Hood coefficients19, to quantify the present level of equity in GHG emissions. Only through a proper empirical understanding of the pattern of climate equity now and how it will change in the near future, can signatories of the UNFCCC make meaningful progress toward resolving the inequity in the burden of climate change impacts.

Results

Greenhouse gas emissions are spread highly unevenly across the world's countries ( Fig. 1), with the top ten GHG emitting countries generating >60% of total emissions and three countries, China (21.1%), the United States of America (14.1%) and India (5.2%) being by far the largest contributors. A Gini coefficient of 80.9 indicated extreme inequality in the distribution of emissions among countries, given that the index can only vary between 0 (perfectly even responsibility) and 100 (one country responsible for all emissions)19. A Robin Hood index of 64 indicated that 64% of GHG emissions would need to be redistributed to achieve an even distribution among countries19. Vulnerability to the impacts of climate change was also unevenly spread among countries, with 17 countries acutely vulnerable to climate change impacts in 2010 ( Fig. 2). The majority of these were island countries located in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans (n = 7, 35.3%) and African countries (n = 8, 47%). By 2030 the number of acutely vulnerable countries is predicted to rise dramatically (n = 62; Fig. 2) and the majority of these will again be island (n = 20, 32.8%) and African (n = 27, 44.2%) countries.

Global inequity in the responsibility for climate change and the burden of its impacts.

( a) Climate change equity for 2010. ( b) Climate change equity for 2030. Countries with emissions in the highest quintile and vulnerability in the lowest quintile are shown in dark red (the climate free riders) and those countries with emissions in the lowest quintile and vulnerability in the highest quintile are shown in dark green (the climate forced riders). Intermediate levels of equity are shown in graduating colours, with countries in yellow producing GHG emissions concomitant with their vulnerability to the resulting climate change. Data deficient countries are shown as grey. Maps generated using ESRI ArcGIS36.

Vulnerability to climate change, mean GHG emissions and mean GDP.

( a) Number of countries in each climate change vulnerability category, derived from DARA vulnerability data18, for 2010 (blue bars) and 2030 (green bars). ( b) Mean GHG emissions for 2010, derived from CAIT GHG emissions data17, shown in CO ₂ equivalent units and climate vulnerability categories for 2010 (blue bars, with standard error) and 2030 (green bars, with standard error). ( c) GDP shown in current US$ (in billions), derived from the World Bank GDP 2010 data28 and 2010 GHG emissions. ( d) Mean GDP for 2010 shown in current US$ (in billions) and climate change vulnerability for 2010 (blue bars, with standard error) and 2030 (green bars, with standard error).

Countries least vulnerable to the impacts of climate change were generally the highest GHG emitters and conversely those most vulnerable to climate change were the least responsible for its genesis. This inequity held true for both 2010 and 2030, with a negative relationship between emissions and climate vulnerability in both years (2010: ρ = −0.4, n = 175, p = 0; 2030: ρ = −0.37, n = 175, p = 0). The only exception is in 2030, where countries acutely vulnerable to climate change will have slightly higher average emissions than those in the severe category (2030: severe = 48.83 mtCO ₂e, acute = 103.13 mtCO ₂ e).

In 2010, of the 179 countries assessed, 28 (15.6%) were in the same quintile for GHG emissions and vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change. This indicates that their vulnerability to climate change approximately matched their relative contribution to its genesis ( Fig. 1). Ninety countries (50.3%) had GHG emissions in a higher quintile than their 2010 climate vulnerability and 20 (11.2%) countries were free riders, with GHG emissions in the highest quintile and climate vulnerability in the lowest quintile ( Fig. 1; see Supplementary Table S4 online). Sixty-one (34%) countries had GHG emissions in a lower quintile than their climate vulnerability and six (3.4%) countries were forced riders, with GHG emissions in the lowest quintile and climate vulnerability in the highest quintile (Comoros, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu; see Supplementary Table S4 online).

By 2030, climate change inequity will rise further, with an increase in the proportion of countries that are forced riders (n = 20; 11.2%), but fewer free riders (n = 16; 8.9%) and equitable countries (n = 23; 12.8%; see Supplementary Table S4 online). Free riders are typically located in the world's sub-tropical and temperate regions, while forced riders are frequently located in tropical regions ( Fig. 1).

Greenhouse gas emissions were positively correlated with GDP (2010: ρ = 0.84, n = 175, p = 0; Fig. 2c), while climate vulnerability declined with increasing GDP (2010: ρ = −0.69, n = 175, p = 0; 2030: ρ = −0.65, n = 175, p = 0; Fig. 2d). Our analysis considers the absolute contribution of each country to climate change, but we also examined climate change equity in per capita terms to provide a more complete picture of emissions responsibilities. The patterns were broadly similar, with, for example, Australia, Russia and the United States of America remaining free riders (see Supplementary Fig. S3 online). However, several populous major emitters (e.g. United Kingdom, China and Brazil) were no longer categorised as free riders.

Discussion

Climate change inequity is globally pervasive and correlated with economic output. Some countries, such as China and the United States of America, are in a win-win position of achieving economic growth through fossil fuel use with few consequences from the resulting climate change, while many other, mostly Island and African, countries suffer low economic growth and severe, negative climate change impacts (see Supplementary Table S4 online). The beneficiaries of this climate inequity have few incentives to meaningfully reduce or halt their GHG emissions. Despite many of the broad issues around climate equity being well known1, well-funded global mechanisms that are being implemented still do not exist. This has serious consequences for our ability to slow the rate of climate change and reduce the wellbeing implications for forced rider countries.

There are several global policy frameworks currently being debated that could address elements of the problem. The Paris Agreement20, secured at the 21 st UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP21), for example, sets an ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. However, the 160 indicative nationally determined contributions (INDCs) pledges submitted by signatories to the UNFCCC prior to COP2121, indicate that current targets for GHG emissions are unlikely to limit warming to below 2°C22 With no binding agreement established at COP21 for INDCs, there is no clear indication of how successful the Paris Agreement will be20. Addressing GHG emissions is clearly an important first step in ensuring the burden of climate change is not amplified in the future. However, the historic commitment to GHG emissions reduction by key free riders has been slow. Only 50 countries ratified the previous Doha Amendment to the Kyoto protocol, which did not include key free riders such as the United States and Russia23. Furthermore, some countries have actually backtracked on their commitments to emissions reductions (e.g. Canada and Australia)24,25.

Likewise, the Paris Agreement calls for urgent and adequate financing of US$100 billion per year by 2020 for climate mitigation and adaptation through the Financial Mechanism of the Convention (FMC)20. However, there is no legally binding mechanism under which parties are responsible for providing this funding. History suggests such funding goals are not always met. For example, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established in 2010 under the UNFCCC to mobilise funding support for the least developed countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, yet it remains poorly funded, with only US$10.2 billion received in pledges by November 201526. Addressing these issues around climate funding will play a critical role in addressing climate inequity27.

Conclusion

It is clear climate change inequity must be addressed. If the commitment to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities that was widely accepted early on in the UNFCCC is to be acted upon, member states now need to do much more to hold climate free riders to account. To ensure equitable outcomes from climate negotiations, there needs to be a meaningful mobilization of policies, such as the Paris Agreement, that achieve national level emissions reductions and to ensure the vulnerable forced-rider countries are able to adapt rapidly to climate change. The provisioning of these policy mechanisms will require a distribution of resources and responsibilities and we believe our results provide one way to understand where these responsibilities lie. The Paris Agreement may be a significant step forward in global climate negotiations. However, as the Agreement's key policies are yet to be realized, member states have both an exceptional opportunity and a moral impetus to use these results to address climate change equity in a meaningful manner.

Methods

We quantified climate change equity, defined as the distribution of climate change benefits and burdens, using data from two publicly available datasets and national GDP data. National level data sets suffer from some weaknesses such as a lack of accounting for sub-national variability and scaling. Nonetheless, they are still highly useful as global metrics as they provide aggregated assessments at the national level, which is the most meaningful for international policy negotiations.

We extracted data on national vulnerability to the negative impacts of climate change from DARA's Climate Vulnerability Monitor (CVM)18. The CVM uses 22 climate vulnerability indicators across four impact areas (Environmental Disasters, Habitat Change, Health Impact and Industry Stress) to evaluate the vulnerability of 184 countries to climate change impacts for the years 2010 and 2030. Each of the 22 indicators is individually aggregated from various data sources and models and then combined to determine a country's overall climate vulnerability, measured by impact to share of GDP and mortality (as these impacts are comparable across the wide range of countries). The CVM calculates vulnerability projections for 2030 using human population growth, mortality and GDP predictions. The CVM uses five vulnerability categories (low, medium, high, severe and acute) which are determined using a mean absolute standard deviation method18. The CVM categories do not of course capture the full complexity of national climate vulnerability, as capturing this would require an impractical degree of data. However, we consider the 22 indicators used by the CVM as capturing a high enough level of complexity to provide a meaningful approximation of national vulnerability.

Data on GHG emissions (by countries) were exported from the World Resource Institute's (WRI) Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT)17, a database of national and international GHG emissions derived from multiple sources. The CAIT data set compiles data for the six main GHG gasses (carbon dioxide (CO ₂), methane (CH ₄), nitrous oxide (N ₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF ₆)) from 185 countries over the period from 1990-2012. We used the 2010 data for this study to match the CVM vulnerability data. The WRI compiled GHG data from UNFCCC reports and complemented with data from several NGO sources17, including emissions data from six major sectors (Land Use Change & Forestry, Energy, Industrial Processes, Agriculture, Waste and International Bunkers) and several subsectors. The CAIT data set reports at the national level, however we extrapolated per capita emissions results by dividing data by 2010 and 2030 population data from the World Bank28 (see Supplementary Table S4 online).

We excluded the ten countries (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Montenegro, Nauru, Niue, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Serbia, Somalia and Taiwan) with data missing in any dataset and 179 remained for analysis. In addition, there were also insufficient data available for many of the world's island and archipelagic countries. Given the negligible GHG emissions and high climate change vulnerability of such countries, the majority are highly likely to qualify as climate forced riders29,30 and as such, we expect that climate forced rider countries are likely underrepresented in our results. National GDP (measured in Current US$) was extracted from the World Bank Group28, who measure GDP as the gross value of all resident producers in an economy plus taxes.

We created a Lorenz curve to represent the variation of GHG emissions among countries using the CAIT dataset and calculated the Gini index to measure inequity in GHG emissions among countries and the Robin hood index to measure how much of the total global emissions would have to be redistributed to achieve equity among countries (see Supplementary Fig. S2 online).

We compared the CAIT GHG data and the CVM vulnerability data both in 2010 and 2030 to assess whether the most heavily polluting countries were also those least vulnerable to the negative effects of climate change. We divided the CAIT GHG emissions into quintiles, matching the CVM data, to enhance comparability between the datasets and enable visualisation of climate equity in the recent past (2010) and near future (2030). We placed the emissions quintiles on a scale between the highest (acute emissions) and the lowest (low emissions) emitting countries. We also tested the correlations between GHG emissions and GDP against vulnerability to climate change by treating vulnerability categories as ordinal data and undertaking spearman's rho tests using R statistical software31. R has a computational limitation for p-values lower than 2.2e-16, as such, where values this small were reported we wrote "p = 0". Additionally, we counted countries in each CVM category and compared them between each time period.

In common with other studies of inequity in climate change32, we used terminology from the economics literature to define 'free riders' and 'forced riders'33, recognising that a strict definition of these terms often applies only to situations where one agent's use of a resource does not directly incur a cost to another agent. We define climate free riders as those countries in the 'acute' GHG emissions quintile and the 'low' vulnerability category, as they disproportionately receive benefits from climate change (via the national wellbeing generated by GHG emissions) but pay few costs in the sense they are the least vulnerable to negative climate change effects34,35. Conversely, we define climate forced riders as those countries that fall within the 'acute' vulnerability category and the 'low' GHG emissions quintile, as they are the most susceptible to the negative consequences of climate change but receive the least benefits. Those countries that we define as equitable, fall in the same emissions quintile and vulnerability category (for example, low emissions quintile, low vulnerability category), as their emissions benefits are concomitant with their climate change burden.

Additional Information

How to cite this article: Althor, G. et al. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci. Rep. 6, 20281; doi: 10.1038/srep20281 (2016).

References

1. Ipcc . Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ Field, C. B., V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O.. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea and L. L. White (eds.)]. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

2. Ipcc . Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [ Barros, V. R., C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, M. D. Mastrandrea, K. J. Mach, T. E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, B. Girma, E. S. Kissel, A. N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P. R. Mastrandrea & L. L. White (eds.)]. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

3. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Text of the Convention. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 1992).

4. Stocker, B. D. et al. Multiple greenhouse-gas feedbacks from the land biosphere under future climate change scenarios. Nature Clim. Change 3, 666-672 (2013).

CAS ADS Article Google Scholar

5. Ipcc. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability : Working Group ii Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Ipcc [ M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. Van Der Linden & C. E. Hanson (Eds)]. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).

6. DARA. Methodological Documentation for the Climate Vulnerability Monitor. (DARA, 2012).

7. Coulter, P. B. Measuring Inequality: A Methodological Handbook. (Westview Press, 1989).

8. UNFCCC. Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (UNFCCC, 2015).

9. Fekete, H. et al. Analysis of Current Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends. (Climate Analytics, 2013).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

1. School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, University of Queensland, Queensland, 4072, Australia

Glenn Althor & James E. M. Watson

2. Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, 10460-1068, NY, USA

James E. M. Watson

3. School of Biological Sciences, University of Queensland, Queensland, 4072, Australia

Richard A. Fuller

Contributions

G.A., J.E.M.W. and R.A.F. designed the analysis. G.A. performed the analysis and analysed the results. G.A., J.E.M.W. and R.A.F. wrote the paper.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Althor, G., Watson, J. & Fuller, R. Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change. Sci Rep 6, 20281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep20281
Download citation

Further reading

Annah E. Piggott-McKellar

, Karen E. McNamara

& Patrick D. Nunn

Regional Environmental Change (2020)

Journal of Cleaner Production (2020)

Samuel C. Zipper

, Fernando Jaramillo

, Lan Wang‐Erlandsson

, Sarah E. Cornell

, Tom Gleeson

, Miina Porkka

, Tiina Häyhä

, Anne‐Sophie Crépin

, Ingo Fetzer

, Dieter Gerten

, Holger Hoff

, Nathanial Matthews

, Constanza Ricaurte‐Villota

, Matti Kummu

, Yoshihide Wada

& Line Gordon

Earth's Future (2020)

Rajinder Kumar

, Zubair Ahmed

, Harwinder Kaur

, Chandan Bera

& Vivek Bagchi

Catalysis Science & Technology (2020)

Elizabeth R. H. Moore

, Matthew R. Smith

, Debbie Humphries

, Robert Dubrow

& Samuel S. Myers

Challenges (2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Countries export much of the harm created by their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because the Earth's atmosphere intermixes globally. Yet, the extent to which this leads to inequity between GHG emitters and those impacted by the resulting climate change depends on the distribution of climate vulnerability.

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Analysis: The lack of diversity in climate-science research

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Analysis: The lack of diversity in climate-science research

# data[].attributes.body
"Analysis: The lack of diversity in climate-science research" is a study conducted by the Carbon Brief. The study addresses biases in how climate change is studied and discussed, in particular who's work on climate change is studied and discussed. The authors found very significant disparities in geography and gender of the 100 most-cited climate research studies they analyzed. For instance, less than 1% of authors were from Africa and 8/10 of those authors were from South Africa. Additionally, the study found that fewer than one-quarter of the authors are female and only 12 of the 100 papers had a female lead-author. This source is useful in demonstrating the lack of voices from the Global South that are included in the international discussion of climate change, despite many of these countries being disproportionately impacted by climate catastrophes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Publishing research in respected journals, such as Nature or Science, is a key way for academics to share their findings with the scientific community and beyond.

A researcher's publication record is often considered a measure of their influence in the field and can be crucial for their career progression.

Biases in authorship make it likely that the existing bank of knowledge around climate change and its impacts is skewed towards the interests of male authors from the global north. This can create blind spots around the needs of some of the most vulnerable people to climate change, particularly women and communities in the global south.

Carbon Brief has analysed the gender and "country of affiliation" of the authors of 100 highly cited climate science papers from the past five years - mapped below - to reveal geographic and gender biases.

The analysis highlights the wide gap in publishing success between the global north and the global south. Less than 1% of authors in the sample are based in Africa, while almost three-quarters are affiliated with European or North American institutions.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the gender disparity within climate-science publishing. It finds that fewer than one-quarter of the authors are female, while only 12 out of the 100 papers analysed have female lead authors.

Carbon Brief has also spoken to a diverse range of academics about the barriers they have faced in their academic careers, the reasons for the lack of diversity in publishing, and their suggestions on how to "decolonise" academia.

The north-south divide

For this analysis, Carbon Brief recorded the gender and country of affiliation for every author from the 100 most highly cited climate science papers of 2016-20, based on Google scholar metrics data. More than 1,300 authors are included in this analysis. (The methodology is described in full later in the article, with a link to the data.)

The chart below shows the institutional affiliations of all authors in this analysis, broken down by continent - Europe (dark blue), North America (light blue), Oceania (yellow), Asia (red), South America (orange) and Africa (purple).

The percentage of authors from the Top 100 most-cited climate science papers during 2016-20, from each continent - Europe (dark blue), North America (light blue), Oceania (yellow), Asia (red), South America (orange) and Africa (purple). Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

The analysis shows that nine out of every 10 authors are affiliated with institutions from the global north - defined as North America, Europe and Oceania. Meanwhile, the entire continent of Africa, which is home to around 16% of the world's population, comprises less than 1% of authors in this analysis.

Further data analysis shows that there are also inequalities within continents. The map below shows the percentage of authors from each country in the analysis, where dark blue indicates a higher percentage. Countries that are not represented by any authors in the analysis are shown in white.

The percentage of all authors from the Top 100 most-cited climate science papers during 2016-20. The designations employed and the presentation of the material on this map do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of Carbon Brief concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Map by Joe Goodman for Carbon Brief using Natural Earth data.

The top-ranking countries on this map are the US, Australia and the UK, which together account for more than half of all authors in this analysis (approximately 30%, 15% and 10%, respectively). Furthermore, nine out of every 10 papers in this analysis include at least one researcher from the UK, the US or Australia.

However, one of the most striking takeaways from this map is the number of countries from Africa and Asia that are not represented in this analysis at all (shown in white). In Africa, a continent with more than 50 countries, only 10 authors are represented in this analysis - eight of whom are from South Africa.

Dr Bellita Chitsamatanga is a researcher at Fort Hare University in South Africa and a postdoctoral fellow of the UNESCO "Oliver Tambo" Chair of Human Rights. She tells Carbon Brief that the high volume of research from South Africa is due to a combination of factors that make the system more "friendly" for academics - such as the country's " pay to publish " system, whereby academics are offered cash rewards for publishing in top-tier journals.

Furthermore, in South Africa, researchers are "​​expected to publish in high-impact, accredited journals", while many other African countries focus on publishing in any journal, regardless of its prestige, Chitsamatanga says.

According to one study, China is now rivalling the US in "Earth and environmental sciences research in Nature portfolio journals". However, this is not representative of academic publishing in many other Asian countries - most of whom are not represented at all in the analysis. After China, which has 67 authors, the next highest Asian country in terms of authorship from this analysis is Japan, with 8 authors.

Dr Quan-Hoang Vuong - a researcher at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research in Phenikaa University in Vietnam - tells Carbon Brief that he is "not surprised" that no Vietnamese authors are represented in this study of highly cited climate papers. However, he finds it "unfortunate", and adds:

"Vietnam is one of the countries that have been facing severe consequences of climate change. I feel that we have many things to share and we should be able to contribute more."

Meanwhile, almost two-thirds of all European countries are included in the analysis. While the UK has the highest proportion of authors in Europe, countries including the Netherlands and Germany also have notable representation.

The trends highlighted above are even more pronounced when looking at the lead authors (first listed authors) on the papers. The plot below shows the number of lead authors from each continent - Europe (dark blue), North America (light blue), Oceania (yellow), Asia (red), South America (orange) and Africa (purple) - out of 100 papers in total.

The number of lead authors from the Top 100 most-cited climate science papers during 2016-20, from each continent. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

No papers in this analysis are led by a researcher from either Africa or South America. Furthermore, only seven papers are led by Asian authors - five of whom are from China.

Dr Tuyeni Mwampamba is a research professor at the Institute of Ecosystems and Sustainability Research in Mexico, where she specialises in charcoal research. She has been living and working in Mexico for over 10 years, but did her undergraduate degree and PhD in the US. Between her undergraduate and PhD degrees, she spent four years working in her home country of Tanzania.

She tells Carbon Brief that while most of the results are "completely expected", she finds the total lack of lead authors from Africa and South America "really shocking and sad".

Barriers to publishing in the global south

'Colonial' science

There are multiple barriers to conducting research in developing countries - where funding is often low, English may not be an official language, and collaborations with richer nations are generally built on an unequal power dynamic.

Conducting scientific research is expensive - and, arguably, the most obvious issue with running climate studies from countries in the global south is the lack of funding. While the US dedicates more than 2.5% of its annual GDP to "research and development", no country in sub-saharan Africa - even the comparably rich South Africa - spends more than 1%.

This funding discrepancy means that the bulk of research concerning developing countries is often not performed by local scientists, but instead by groups from the global north. One study found that European and North American institutions received 78% of all funding for climate research regarding Africa over 1990-2020, while African institutions received only 14.5%.

Dr Dolors Armenteras is a professor of landscape ecology at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia. She tells Carbon Brief that it is "really hard" to work with such limited funding, adding that it is also difficult for students, who "don't have funds, don't have grants and don't have scholarships".

Jill Dunbar of Computer Sciences Corp. stands next to racks of SGI servers that make up the huge Pleiades supercomputer in the NASA Advanced Supercomputing Facility. Credit: Tribune Content Agency LLC / Alamy Stock Photo.

Mwampamba tells Carbon Brief that "ground-breaking research" often needs a level of technical expertise and capacity that countries in the global south do not have:

"Groundbreaking research is the research that tends to get funded. But groundbreaking research usually requires more savvy tools, different kinds of data, all types of equipment and abilities that might not exist in a study site in the global south. That creates a huge divide."

One way for scientists from the global south to overcome issues of funding and technology is to collaborate with researchers from the global north. Academic collaborations between countries are becoming increasingly common. Over the period of 2000-13, the percentage of total publications across all disciplines, not just climate science, with authors from multiple countries rose from 13% to 19%.

However, this type of collaboration is often unequal. Dr Minal Pathak - a climate researcher at Ahmedabad University in India - tells Carbon Brief that providing data is rarely enough to get your name high up on the author list. She adds that the lead author is almost always a researcher from a richer country who uses the data to conduct analysis.

Receive our free Daily Briefing for a digest of the past 24 hours of climate and energy media coverage, or our Weekly Briefing for a round-up of our content from the past seven days. Just enter your email below:

Armenteras adds that collaborations between developed and developing countries can lead to "asymmetries of power" that are "really dangerous" - allowing researchers from rich countries to "take advantage of inequality".

For example, Armenteras explains that funding for research usually comes from countries in the global north, giving researchers from the global north more "power" over the direction that the study takes. Tensions in academic collaborations can be compounded by misconceptions about the quality of research that researchers in the global south are capable of, she adds:

"They put you down and think your science must not be good...They don't associate Colombia as a place where science can be done and often think, 'I have to be the saviour and do the science for you'."

Armenteras recounts one collaboration with an academic from an institution from the global north, during which she worked as hard as her fellow principal investigators from the global north, but without the funding and assistance that they assigned themselves.

"We are not slaves," Armenteras tells Carbon Brief, "we don't want to work for free". She ended up quitting the project.

"Researchers in the global south are considered to be kind of like assistants. Even if they're very much engaged in collaborations, they don't get authorship [on papers]," Schipper adds.

Mwampamba elaborates on this dynamic, explaining the thought process of some researchers from the global north when they conduct research in poorer countries:

"The northern scientist often brings his or her own grad students from the North, and they tend to view their local partners as facilitators - logistic, cultural, language, admin - rather than science collaborators.

"It's like: 'You're here as local partners so you make everything accessible to me and make my life easier when I'm here in this foreign country. You will interpret the cultural part, and I will do the science'."

Another issue with cross-country scientific collaborations is the mindset of some scientists from the global north who seek to extract resources and data from developing countries without contributing to local infrastructure or science capacity - a practise known as " colonial ", "parachute", or "helicopter" science.

Dr Fernanda Adame is a researcher at the Australian Rivers Institute of Griffith University. She conducted research in Mexico for much of her life and has experienced parachute science first hand. "It's just plain unfair," she tells Carbon Brief. In a career column in Nature, Adame wrote:

"I saw foreign scientists come to our laboratory carrying high-tech instruments that we didn't have access to. We took the scientists to our field sites and taught them about the unique ecology of the mangroves. Sometimes they used our small laboratory to store or analyse their samples. Neither I nor anyone else on the team was ever asked to contribute to the papers that were published."

Adame tells Carbon Brief that "a lot of scientists in places like the US still have this tradition of having the old male professor deciding who can or cannot be an author". This process can lead to authors from developing countries being under-represented, she adds.

Brazilian researchers inspect plants in Sao Sebastiao de Cuieiras near the Cuieiras river in the Brazil's Amazon rainforest. Credit: Reuters / Alamy Stock Photo.

Armenteras tells Carbon Brief that in Colombia - a country that she calls "paradise" for collecting data on biodiversity - local researchers want their names on a paper with "the big white guy" from a northern country. So, she says, they often "kneel down to people from overseas and collect data for them, or give their [own] data away".

While this may allow local researchers to get their names on the paper, it "doesn't build scientific capacity in the country", she laments. This mindset of extracting resources without contributing to local capacity extends as far as people, according to Armenteras, who recounts times when researchers from the global north asked her to send promising Colombian students to be trained.

This " brain drain" of promising researchers leaving their country to seek better prospects abroad can have a negative impact on research and development in developing countries and it stands to reason that this will have a knock-on impact on paper publications.

Publish or perish

Once academics have completed their research, there are still multiple barriers to contend with before it is published. The process of writing and publishing papers is laborious, highly competitive and can take years - even for researchers from well-established institutions from the global north.

Academics must first choose a journal whose " scope" fits well with their paper and submit a first manuscript to them. The editors of the journal can either reject the manuscript outright (known as a " desk rejection ") or send it to other scientists in the field to be "peer reviewed".

The reviewers are asked to suggest changes to the paper - ranging from minor grammar changes to instructions to change the direction of the paper entirely. There are often multiple rounds of editing in this way before the paper is finally published. As such, it is not only the quality of the research, but also the quality of the writing that is important when submitting to a journal.

The specific format required for writing papers is defined by "the academic culture of western universities", according to Dr Marton Demeter - a researcher at the National University of Public Service in Budapest with a specialism in "publication networks". He tells Carbon Brief:

"Global south authors are not necessarily familiar with these norms and top-tier journals are far from being inclusive in this sense: if you don't write the paper exactly the same way as your colleagues from Harvard, your research will be considered of low quality."

The process of writing papers can be complex, so well-funded universities often offer their students training on how to write papers and assistance to guide them through the publishing process. In contrast, academics in developing countries often do not receive the training and support that their counterparts from the global north benefit from, Schipper tells Carbon Brief:

"There is a huge discrepancy between the capacity, training, skills and opportunities available for scholars in developing countries to learn how to write peer review, high quality academic journal articles [and that of scholars in developed countries]."

Schipper is co-Editor-in-Chief of the journal Climate and Development. She tells Carbon Brief that she often receives submissions that are "really interesting", but in which the author "doesn't quite know how to write an academic paper". Schipper notes that some journals, including hers, offer help to the authors of such manuscripts, but that this is not common practice:

"If you don't have a lot of experience in writing [papers] and you don't know what a paper is supposed to look like, you won't write a good abstract or introduction and the editor will say 'forget it - it's just not worth it, this is not a good piece of work'."

Pathak is associate editor on the same journal and explains that this lack of knowledge around how to write and publish papers does not only apply to early career researchers, but also to mid-career professionals:

"I think it's quite challenging for a developing country author from a small country to be able to publish in these journals. I know mid-career professors who are at a loss of where to start - of how to publish. But it's not like they are less competent."

The inaccessibility of scientific literature is also a problem for publishing. "One of the biggest issues is that people can't access literature that they can cite," Schipper tells Carbon Brief. She adds that when she receives a paper submission, one of the first things she looks at is how old the references are. "I think the problem of climate change is that it's moving so rapidly...and it's really expensive", she says.

Pathak says that this also poses a problem for getting papers cited:

"Suppose someone [from a developing country] does manage to publish a paper in a top category journal. Their developing country colleagues cannot access that paper, so the paper would likely get fewer citations from within the region."

Conversely, researchers from well-funded universities that can afford to pay journal subscription charges and, therefore, "have access to a huge library of resources and can access everything", Pathak adds.

To solve this problem, some journals have begun publishing "open access" articles that anyone can view. For example, Nature recently launched an open-access service, for which authors can pay a €9,500 fee to make their paper available for free.

The journals will charge authors up to €9,500 to make research papers free to read, in a long-awaited alternative to subscription-only publishing. https://t.co/t9e0FfrYxN
- nature (@Nature) November 24, 2020

Demeter sees open-access journals as an issue for academics from the global south. He conducted a study that concludes: "[The study] reinforces our concerns that hybrid open-access models are likely to perpetuate inequalities in knowledge production." He tells Carbon Brief:

"If open access in journals with article processing charges (APCs) become the mainstream way of publication, then global-south scholars' chances to publish in leading journals will be even lower than today, as they wont be able to pay the high APCs - which will be easily paid by researchers working at sourceful western universities or researchers that are funded by international grants."

Mwampamba also sees open-access publishing as " a huge barrier " for academics from low-income countries due to the cost. She notes that waivers are sometimes an option for authors from developing countries, but tells Carbon Brief that "you really have to search for them. There are all these rules that are not very explicit."

For example, she tells Carbon Brief that often, waivers are only granted if all authors on a paper are from an institute in a developing country - not just the lead or corresponding author.

Even if academics write a high-quality paper with solid citations - and have the money to publish it - research shows that academic journals are biased in favour of "authors from the US, English-speaking countries outside the US, and prestigious academic institutions".

Vuong tells Carbon Brief that "many top-tier journals still remain a type of 'old-boys club' and are not quite open to voices from the developing world". He relays experience from is own research group that demonstrates this:

"In some cases, we propose useful and worthwhile ideas and analyses, which may be rejected outright for vague reasons...But some time after those decisions, we found publications with very similar ideas, with no better technical treatments and no superior quality, published in those journals. The difference is that the authors usually came from very well-known research institutes or faculty of top-tier universities in the US, Germany, UK, etc. I can say that the playing field is unlevel."

Part of the issue is in the peer-review process. Peer reviewers, alongside journal editors, are " gatekeepers" of science - deciding which studies are shared with the rest of the scientific community, and which are not. However, there is a well-documented bias in the system, Demeter tells Carbon Brief:

"There is empirical evidence showing that both editors and reviewers found submitted manuscripts better if they think that they were submitted by professors from elite western universities."

Pathak laments that many of her experienced colleagues will "never get a paper in a Nature journal", because breaking into the world of academic publishing is so difficult for researchers from the global south:

"All the papers that make it into major climate change journals would keep on getting cited which drives more funding and international collaborations. So for young authors from developing countries, breaking into that upper league just gets harder."

The language barrier

"We cannot deny the fact that top-tier journals are being published in English," Vuong tells Carbon Brief. Mwampamba adds that English-language journals are universally considered the best:

"There's a clear ranking - both in universities and research institutes - that if you publish in English to an international audience your science is considered better and it boosts your CV and promotions considerably."

Mwampamba also tells Carbon Brief that, while many of her colleagues can read in English, writing and speaking are "more challenging skills to master". Similarly, Vuong tells Carbon Brief that even if scientists have reasonable skill in speaking English as a second language, the language barrier can still be a problem, as "writing clearly in a second language is still a hard skill to master".

I am SO FIRED UP 🔥 today! Here is another reviewer and editor comment saying we need a native English speaker to check our manuscript or else....here's my reponse. I hope it's not too ruuuuuuude. Geeee wheeeez! pic.twitter.com/WHXw2r1ygf
- Tuyeni H Mwampamba (@KasukuWaPwani) September 21, 2021

"We cannot ignore" the language barrier, Pathak tells Carbon Brief. She has been publishing in English for years, but notes that in the early days of her research career, her papers were often sent back from peer review with the comment, "extensive language edit needed".

"In Africa, academic writing is weak compared to writing elsewhere because competition to publish topical issues remains very high," Chitsamatanga tells Carbon Brief. As such, she says that the rejection rate for manuscripts submitted to English language journals is "very high". To overcome these problems, many academics are forced to turn to translation services, which can be expensive.

On top of this is the issue of writing style. Mwampamba highlights that different cultures have different ways of expressing themselves which is - to some extent - also reflected in writing styles. For example, she notes that the western style of writing papers is "short and snappy", while the Spanish style tends to be "more verbose and expressive". She tells Carbon Brief that this presents yet another barrier to publication:

"Even if someone writes the paper in Spanish and gets it translated - and the translation is perfect - the journal might still want a whole different style. This is a lack of flexibility on the part of journals and reviewers. They want to keep things in the Northern style.

"Reviewers are supposed to look at the quality of the science or the arguments. But they are to some extent gatekeepers of style. I think it is a real pity that style diversity is smothered in formal communication of science. I know it contributes a lot to why I find a lot of papers so boring to read, difficult to recommend to non-academic colleagues and why so many of us just skip the intros and discussions!"

For scientists who do not speak English, committing to writing a paper in their first language still does not solve the issue. When writing the "introduction" of a research paper, scientists are expected to conduct a thorough review of existing literature and explain how their research builds on this. Without access to or understanding of English language papers - which make up the majority of existing science literature - this can be tricky.

Academic culture

Finally, there is the less-discussed issue of academic culture. In many countries in the global south, academia is less of a priority than in the global north, Schipper tells Carbon Brief:

"In a lot of global-south universities, most of the task is to teach and there's not as much emphasis on research because research funding is not available as much... Because the salaries are so bad, they often take on a lot of consulting work - like UNDP or other kinds of organisations - so they don't really have time to do research. They do other kinds of work to supplement their incomes."

When the Reuters "hot" list was published, it triggered a backlash across the climate science community for its lack of diversity. Schipper tells Carbon Brief that a serious issue with the list is its presentation of the scientists as the most "influential" in climate science. This "influence" is calculated using a western approach and does not take into consideration the different roles of climate scientists in developing countries, she tells Carbon Brief. She adds:

"I would even argue that a lot of global-south scholars might have a much better relationship with policymakers because there's fewer of them. The policymakers are looking for scientific advice...So if you spend seven days every month working with your minister of environment, or sitting in meetings at the ministry, then you're not writing a paper, but also you might have a much stronger influence on what happens."

This is an example of how a northern approach to quantifying academic performance can underestimate or miss out contributions from the global south.

The gender gap

In addition to the north-south divide, there is a well-documented gender bias in academic publishing. Carbon Brief's analysis finds that only 22% of authors from the Top 100 most-cited climate science papers over 2016-20 are female.

The plot below shows the number of male (purple) and female (orange) authors in this analysis from each continent.

The number of male (purple) and female (orange) authors in the Top 100 most-cited climate science papers during 2016-20, shown by continent. Chart by Carbon Brief using Highcharts.

Female authors account for less than half of the total authors in every continent analysed in this study. In Europe, North America, Oceania and Asia, the total percentage of female authors is 20%, 35%, 29% and 23%, respectively.

Past research has suggested that publication rates for women are lower in developing countries. However, percentages for Africa and South America are not given here, as the total number of authors from these continents is low. More data would be needed to confirm this.

The gender imbalance becomes more evident when focusing on lead authors - as women make up only 12 of the 100 lead authors in this analysis. Similarly, another study on first-author gender biases in the geosciences, found that female lead authors represent between 13-30% of all first authors in the papers tested.

Barriers to female scientists

Women in STEM

The leaky pipeline is, in part, due to the inflexibility of academica, Schipper tells Carbon Brief:

"The clear thing is this leaky pipeline where women - and also often anybody who's not a white, cis man - tend to 'fall out' because of all because barriers that are in the system - and lack of flexibility is one of the biggest ones."

The 20 students selected from the state of Mysore, India, to complete a BSc degree in physics, with their teachers and other staff (1958). Out of 20 students, three were female. Credit: Ahalya Balasubramanyam.

Progress is being made in improving the gender balance of women in science within some countries and sectors. However, there are still barriers facing women within the world of academia - driven in part by stereotypes and unconscious biases.

There is extensive literature disproving the misconceptions and stereotypes about women in science - such as "women are worse at maths" and "women are not analytical enough for science". However, despite having been proven untrue time and time again, these assertions - introduced to girls at a young age - can affect their performance and confidence.

Pathak tells Carbon Brief that from an early age she was exposed to stereotypes about the ability of women in science compared to that of men. "They just don't think you can think. They don't think you are intelligent," Armenteras adds.

Upon reaching the male-dominated field of scientific academia, the environment can be hostile for women, who are judged more harshly, earn less money, are less likely to have their work cited and face a " motherhood penalty" long before they actually have children. Women are then more likely to leave academia upon having their first child than their male counterparts.

Women who choose a scientific career path are less likely to choose natural sciences - such as maths, physics and engineering - than social sciences. This also has implications for the gender balance in climate-science research, Schipper and Pathak pointed out in their response to the Reuters Hot List:

"Natural sciences receive 770% more research funding on climate change than social sciences, which generates large differences in the sort of publications being produced. Related to this, gender biases in funding are significantly more explicit in the physical sciences than in social sciences and there are more men in STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] subjects than women."

Schipper points out that "traditionally, STEM subjects like physics where you would learn to model are overwhelmingly male ". She adds that climate-modelling studies are typically published in higher-impact journals, and are often faster to write and publish than social science papers, allowing authors in this field to accumulate more publications and citations.

Pathak tells Carbon Brief:

"You'll see a lot of [quantitative] climate-science papers attracting more citations. But there's also this very important branch of social and behavioural science where the journals are not often that highly ranked and, therefore, sometimes women who are not in those quantitative fields get underrepresented.

"I have colleagues in the social sciences who don't even get a fraction of the funding that [more technical] science gets."

Meanwhile, a survey of more than 100 female authors of IPCC reports found that "41% of women saw gender as a barrier to their success, and 43% believed that female climate researchers are not well represented in the climate community".

Meanwhile, a survey of more than 100 female authors of IPCC reports found that "41% of women saw gender as a barrier to their success, and 43% believed that female climate researchers are not well represented in the climate community".

Cultural norms and gender roles

Cultural norms and gender roles play a notable part in the experiences of women entering academia.

Chitsamatanga tells Carbon Brief that her schedule is "hectic" and leaves limited time for her work as an academic:

"My day begins at 4:30am getting the kids ready to go to school. By 3:30pm I have to rush back home to collect the kids and we have to start preparing for tomorrow. There's laundry to do. There's cooking to do...

"The duty of being a mom, of being a wife, of being a daughter-in-law comes first...in most cases, when you get home, you have to train yourself to say 'when the kids go to bed, then I will try and do one hour or two hours of work'."

Chitsamatanga says that female academics in Africa have to "put on a lot of hats" and juggle their limited time between many different responsibilities. However, this is usually not the case for men, she adds:

"It's an issue of tradition and cultural beliefs and the way that you are brought up. For African men, it's easier to say, 'I don't want to be disturbed'. We have been brought up to give them that space. Then you [women] have to make sure that you are keeping the kids quiet, you're entertaining them.

"But, if it's me that has a deadline, I have to find a way to meet it, even if it means I just have to spend that whole night working... We have to stretch that 24-hour day to 72 hours."

She also tells Carbon Brief about cultural and traditional beliefs in Africa that require women to refrain from loudly voicing their opinions or challenging others. This can prevent female academics from putting themselves forward, for fear that they will be called "wayward", Chitsamatanga says. There are also potential issues in interactions between male and female academics, she adds:

"There are few male academics that want to mentor female academics. There is the insinuation that if the two people are working closely together, then there must be something going on between the two of them - that kind of thing. The female academics themselves tend to be uncomfortable at being mentored by a male."

Armenteras also notes the danger of appearing "bossy" or "overbearing" as a woman in science trying to make their case. And Mwampamba tells Carbon Brief that she often enjoys the atmosphere when working with mostly women:

"It's usually less competitive. It's just an environment that's so much more pleasant to work with. I am usually consciously aware of how enjoyable and effortless it is and how everyone's defensive barriers are mostly down.

"But when working with male academics I find myself turning on the 'you are now working with men' switch. Basically mentally and emotionally preparing myself to be 'harder', i.e., not to accept to be the note taker, to volunteer much less, to have to repeat my ideas several times, to be more stoic."

However, even when there are no overt systems separating men and women, peoples' perceptions and unconscious biases can still play a huge role in hindering women.

Armenteras tells Carbon Brief that "sexism is still in science everywhere". For example, she describes discussions with colleagues in which her ideas were "dismissed many times", but where the same ideas were accepted when proposed by a man.

"We women have so much information that we want to share - about our research, our work, our perspectives of the field we are contributing to," Mwampamba says.

Female PhD student takes core sediment samples from a mud bank in a cave in Mulu National Park, Borneo. Credit: Robbie Shone / Alamy Stock Photo.

Women from the global south face (at least) two barriers - gender and race. This " intersectionality ", in which a single person faces multiple overlapping systems of discrimination, comes with its own challenges, Mwampamba adds:

"You are never sure whether access to something is denied because of your colour, because of your gender, or because of your nationality. You're always questioning that. And I think the opposite is true as well - you aren't sure whether you were invited to something because they truly value your work or if they were trying to fulfill some diversity criteria."

'Decolonising' academia

For many countries in the global north, the history of scientific progress is closely entangled with that of colonialism . This history is still clearly embedded in many aspects of science and academia. As such, there is a growing movement to "decolonise" academia, by working to recognise the colonial context of modern-day science and - as one article explains - to "eliminate, or at least mitigate, the disproportionate legacy of white European thought and culture in education".

Biased science

Carbon Brief's analysis shows that women and researchers from the global south are significantly underrepresented in climate-science literature.

Mwampamba tells Carbon Brief that the lack of diversity means we are "missing a whole set of brains that can contribute to science", as well as ignoring the opportunity to try "a whole new type of science - a science that is a lot more inclusive of other ways of doing things, other ways of generating knowledge".

She adds that important data is also being overlooked by limiting the scope of international science to English-language journals.

Demeter stresses that diversity increases the quality of science:

"Diverse communities, including academic communities, can provide more creative work. Research shows that the contributions of diverse research groups are generally better than those of their less diverse counterparts."

And Pathak emphasises that negotiations and decisions around climate action will need global contributions:

"Climate change is a global problem. If we want wider participation in decision-making, we need to understand all the available solutions and which ones are going to be accepted. It is therefore important to get wider views - from indigenous communities, non-English speakers, communities who are never invited or consulted.

"We won't know what local solutions are available if we never consult them."

One study concludes that "the production of knowledge is biased towards richer regions with cooler climates", noting that "the imbalanced production of knowledge affects adaptation and policymaking".

Another states that the supply of knowledge is "biased toward the richer and less vulnerable countries", while the production of knowledge is "is skewed away from the poorer, fragile and more vulnerable regions of the world".

While science aims to be completely objective and free from bias, this is difficult to achieve. Science is conducted by individuals, each of whom bring their own biases to the way they conduct research, Schipper tells Carbon Brief:

"It's a fallacy to say that science is neutral and that we're not influenced by other things in our lives. We [scientists] get our training and so on, but world views, perspectives that we have and our social cultural baggage influences the way that we understand what we're looking at.

"And so it's not that women or ethnic minorities or disabled researchers inherently or biologically do research differently - but it's about the perspectives that we bring and the way that we understand the problem - particularly with climate change, because it is a societal problem."

Dr Farhana Sultana is an associate professor at Syracuse University in the US. She also notes the skew in knowledge production when one group is over-represented in science, telling Carbon Brief:

"Knowledge production and circulation are skewed and incomplete, and this distorts and impoverishes public discourse on important topics. Ultimately, this has deleterious consequences in policies and practice.

"[Our current system] ends up reproducing a knowledge system that is exclusionary and misses out not just a diversity of voices, but perpetuates the colonial practices of discounting of knowledge, lived experiences and wisdom from many global-south contexts."

This is unsustainable, as reliance on "trickle-down science" leads to "ongoing reliance on the global north for solutions to local problems and an inability to develop alternative approaches to problem solving that take local - non-northern - contexts into account", one study explains.

Demeter adds that as the entire system of knowledge production is skewed towards the interests of the global north, they can "determine the leading theories and ideas, the adaptive courses of actions and the accepted forms of academic capital in the world-system of knowledge production".

He adds that higher education has "a few elite and a legion of communal institutions"- meaning that we only hear voices from the "international elite". He tells Carbon Brief that to make their voices heard, underrepresented scientists often have to "repeat the knowledge disseminated by the ruling elite". He adds:

"If academics from the underprivileged peripheries succeed in reaching the centre, they have to sacrifice their authenticity. It is very hard to imagine a peripheral academic with a global reputation who lacks elite central education: they must be subjected to intellectual reeducation - a form of intellectual colonisation - before they are permitted to express their voices."

Schipper stresses that, based on her experience, circumstance - rather than lack of knowledge - are holding back authors from developing countries:

"There is a huge amount of fantastic knowledge coming out of the global south, but there are some really deep systemic issues that stand in the way and prevent authors from submitting published."

Solutions

None of the academics who Carbon Brief spoke to say they are surprised with the overall findings of this analysis. All are well aware, they say, of the systemic inequalities within academic publishing.

Carbon Brief asked the scientists how they think diversity within academic publishing can be improved and the system of academia decolonised.

Earlier this year, Armenteras wrote a comment piece in Nature Ecology and Evolution outlining guidelines for "healthy global scientific collaborations". In this piece, she explained how academics from the global north can collaborate with researchers from less-developed countries in a constructive way - including avoiding tokenism, building long-term collaborations and focusing on building capacity in developing countries rather than going in with an "extractive" mindset.

She tells Carbon Brief that, after publishing this article, she received many messages of agreement and support from other academics from the global south:

"I got messages from many African countries, I think every single South America and Latin American country. We share a lot of sentiments."

Armenteras tells Carbon Brief that, in order to make collaborations fairer, it is important to "get rid of your implicit bias" and "be aware that you are in a position of privilege" when working with local researchers from lower-income countries.

Meanwhile, the " manifesto for action " published by editors of the Climate and Development journal outlines further actions that can be taken to improve the representation in climate publishing.

Our Editorial commenting on the @Reuters Hot List is out: 'Equity in climate scholarship: a manifesto for action'.

We argue that researchers from the Global South and Global North are competing with unequal weapons and this needs to be acknowledged. https://t.co/w3pWj4TR0z https://t.co/NVwWb0ycRP
- Dr Lisa Schipper 🌎 (@schipper_lisa) May 11, 2021

The manifesto states that scholars must "actively cite" female scholars and researchers from the global south, cite across disciplines and actively seek out co-authors from the global south.

Chitsamatanga stresses that mentorship is crucial. It is particularly important for women, she says, so that knowledge about how to navigate academia as a woman is passed on down the generations rather than being lost. She adds:

"Changes have been made and we are appreciative of those changes...I always say my main wish is for roundtable discussions, to get to know 'what are your challenges, how best do we assist you, where are we going wrong and how best do we correct that?'"

For researchers in the global north, "not being inclusive certainly makes for a more efficient research process", Mwampamba tells Carbon Brief. She acknowledges that limiting your collaborations to only those colleagues who are fluent in the same language, have good internet connection and live in the same time zone can streamline the process of research.

However, she emphasises the importance of diversity and of including researchers from the global south at all stages of the project. She tells Carbon Brief that researchers from the global north need to sit with their collaborators at the beginning of the project and work out what everyone expects and needs from the project.

"Design the whole thing together, apply for the grant together, then execute it together," she emphasises.

Students carry out field experiments on Arctic ice on Russky Island, as part of the 2017 Ice Mechanics International Workshop School organised by Russia for young scientists from around the world. Credit: ITAR-TASS News Agency / Alamy Stock Photo.

"The country's economic development is undoubtedly an important factor," Vuong tells Carbon Brief. In a recent Nature "world view" article, he argues that investment in science is an important way of supporting countries' development:

"For a developing country like Vietnam that wishes to catch up with the developed world, the best way is to fully appreciate and strongly support the value of science as a foundation for technological advance."

Demeter tells Carbon Brief that he wants to "confront the biasing effects of having elite degrees" by removing people's institutional affiliations from submitted papers and other means of academic assessments, and having a person's work judged based on "talent and production alone".

He also outlines some actions that academics from the global south can take, such as organising regional conferences in which local academics take centre stage, He adds:

"Moreover, they [researchers from the global south] should cite the valuable papers of non-central scholars at least as frequently as they cite the works of central academics in their publications. Finally, and most importantly, they should preserve and even critically intensify their authentic voices even after they succeed in acquiring positions in some of the central strongholds of the global academy."

Increasing diversity among editors and peer reviewers can also have a positive trickle-down impact. Women and scientists from the global south are currently under-represented in editor and reviewer roles, but one study finds that "mixed-gender gatekeeper teams lead to more equitable peer review outcomes". It also finds that for many countries' papers were more likely to be accepted when their paper was presented to a "gatekeeper" from their country.

Adame tells Carbon Brief that she has started taken action and been pleasantly surprised at the response:

"I have started pointing out to journals when I get a paper that is obviously parachute science, and leave a polite suggestion to the authors to include a local person. I have been surprised that the editor and other reviewers have supported me on this."

Methodology

For this analysis, Carbon Brief used Google scholar metrics to rank the Top 100 English-language journals, based on citation number, over 2016-20. From the 100 journals listed by Google scholar metrics, Carbon Brief selected all journals that could contain climate-science papers, excluding (for example) medical journals, such as the Lancet.

Google scholar metrics ranks every paper published in its selected journals over 2016-20 by citation number. Carbon Brief used this ranking to manually select the Top 100 climate science papers from the selected journals.

Papers about energy and air pollution are not included under the umbrella of "climate science" for the purpose of this analysis. Policy forum pieces from Science and Science Advances have been excluded. Comment pieces from Nature journals have also been excluded, as these are written on an invitation-only basis.

For every paper, each author's gender and country of affiliation was recorded. Country of affiliation is based on the author's institutional affiliation in the paper. For authors with multiple affiliations, the first listed affiliation was used.

(Approximately 20 of the authors in this analysis are affiliated with institutions in both the global north and global south. Around two thirds of these authors had their affiliation from the global north listed first on their papers, with the remaining third listing their global south affiliation first. As there are more than 1,300 authors in the analysis, this unequal split does not materially affect the results.)

For papers with joint lead authorship, the first listed author is identified as the sole lead author in this analysis. However, Carbon Brief notes that the convention for selecting first authors varies across fields, and may mean different things across the different papers in this analysis.

The gender of authors is based on the usual gender of their first name as determined by genderize.io (a web-based API), an internet search for their professional website bearing a sex-specific pronoun, author appearance from images or by asking the author over email.

The use of the genderize.io API to determine the gender of individuals has been used in research articles (see examples here, here and here) and by publications including the Guardian. The use of internet searches and appearance based on images has also been used in research articles (see examples here and here).

If genderize.io could not predict the gender of the author with at least a 90% probability and all other methods failed, the author is included in country analysis, but excluded from gender analysis. This is the case for 13 of the authors, accounting for less than 1% of the total analysis.

Carbon Brief recognises that gender is not best categorised using a binary "male" or "female" label, and appreciates that the methods used of determining author gender could result in inaccuracies. However, for the purpose of this analysis, this method was deemed the most suitable.

(Carbon Brief also "scaled" the results so that each paper was given an equal weighting. This was to avoid single papers with tens of authors from the same country skewing the results. However, the scaling did not notably change the results of the analysis, so the results are not presented in this piece. However, these results can be found in the data.)

As the results were recorded manually, Carbon Brief acknowledges the possibility of human error. A large sample size of more than 1,300 authors was employed to try to mitigate the effect of any such inaccuracies on the final results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis: The lack of diversity in climate-science research - Carbon Brief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Publishing research in respected journals, such as Nature or Science, is a key way for academics to share their findings with the scientific community and beyond. A researcher's publication record is often considered a measure of their influence in the field and can be crucial for their career progression.

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Uganda's Vanessa Nakate says COP26 sidelines nations most affected by climate change

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Uganda's Vanessa Nakate says COP26 sidelines nations most affected by climate change

# data[].attributes.body
In this interview, Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate describes how her country, Africa, and much of the Global South is excluded from discussions on the impacts and the solutions for climate change. One example of this is how her name is excluded from many of the media headlines about climate activists at COP26 while the names of white, European activists are included. She also points out that many activists from the Global South were not even invited. The exclusion of climate activists from the Global South aligns with the findings from the Carbon Brief about the lack of scientist voices from the Global South. By excluding these voices, the dire circumstances faced by communities in the Global South are underreported in media and even in intergovernmental summits like COP26.

Nakate also speaks on the failed promise of $100 billion per year by 2020 from richer, developed countries in the Global North (like the US) to climate vulnerable countries. This failure to provide promised funds to vulnerable countries who, despite not contributing much to emissions and the causes of climate change, are faced with climate catastrophe, is an example of failed international cooperation efforts on curbing the effects of climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

Vanessa Nakate took the title of her memoir from something that happened at a climate conference last year. She posed for a photo with other activists in Davos, Switzerland. She was the only Black woman among the five. And when The Associated Press published the photo, there were only four faces. They cropped her out of the picture. Vanessa Nakate tweeted, you didn't just erase a photo. You erased a continent. But I am stronger than ever. Then she posted this video.

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

VANESSA NAKATE: Does that mean that I have no value as an African activist or, if it's from Africa, don't have any value at all?

SHAPIRO: This week we're meeting young activists who've come to Scotland fighting for the future of the planet. Vanessa Nakate is Ugandan, and her book is called "A Bigger Picture: My Fight To Bring A New African Voice To The Climate Crisis."

It's so good to meet you in person.

NAKATE: Nice to meet you, too.

SHAPIRO: I wanted to meet you here in front of this wall because it's full of messages from the world's children about the climate crisis. And so when you look at this and you read these messages, what do you see? What does it make you think?

NAKATE: I think I really love this one. We need to learn more.

SHAPIRO: From a 12-year-old in the Maldives.

NAKATE: Yes, from the 12-year-old. I think it's really important because there is so much to learn about the climate crisis. And learning about the climate crisis means learning from the voices that are on the front lines. And we have seen how continuously activists from the global south, activists who are, you know, speaking out from the most affected communities, their voices are not being platformed. Their voices are not being amplified. Their stories are being erased. And I think that, you know, this is a problem. We can't have climate justice if voices from the most affected areas are being left behind.

SHAPIRO: You write and you often speak about how the global south is excluded from these conversations. Has that been your experience at the COP26 summit here in Scotland? Have you felt excluded?

NAKATE: Well, I can say that I think on my first day at the COP, I happened to, you know, meet the first minister of Scotland.

SHAPIRO: Oh, Nicola Sturgeon.

NAKATE: Yes, and with Greta Thunberg. And unfortunately, some media, the way they were reporting about it, you would see a picture. But then it would say Greta meets first minister.

SHAPIRO: And so your name wouldn't even be included. Oh, it's like a repeat of what happened last year almost.

NAKATE: Exactly. And honestly, I just didn't have words for it because is something that I have already talked about. And I think it's not just my experience. There are many activists from the global south who have been sidelined the conference.

SHAPIRO: Yeah. As we know, climate change looks different in different places. Can you tell us what it looks like in Kampala, Uganda, where you live?

NAKATE: Yeah. Uganda is a country heavily dependent on agriculture as an economy and also for very many families, especially in the rural areas. So with the rise in global temperatures, the disruptions in weather patterns are causing extreme weather events like flooding, like landslides, like extreme droughts. So it means that it's loss of people's funds, drying of people's crops, destruction of people's houses. So these are some of the visible impacts of the climate crisis in Uganda.

SHAPIRO: You began your climate activism a couple of years ago as you were finishing university. And you say many people around you at the time were telling you to get married and have kids. And we've been speaking with a lot of young women involved in climate activism this week. You write in the book about the role that gender plays. Would you read this section for us?

NAKATE: OK. (Reading) To my mind, it's no accident that a wave of young people has swept the world demanding action to address the climate crisis. It is also no accident that young women are leading many of these movements. We've seen what's happening on the ground. We have less access to resources and power. And so we feel more acutely what occurs when the little we have is taken from us, washed away in the rising waters or withering in the unrelenting sun.

SHAPIRO: Tell us more about the role that you see gender playing in climate activism.

NAKATE: Yeah. This is a conversation that many people don't want to have. You know, people don't like mixing climate and, for example, race or climate and gender. But it's evident that women and girls are disproportionately affected by the climate crisis in communities like mine. In many communities across the global south, where women and girls have the responsibility of, you know, providing food for their families or collecting water for their families or firewood for their families, so many times women are at the frontlines when these disasters happen. It is their hard work that is put to nothing when their funds are destroyed or when their crops are destroyed. It is women who have to walk very long distances to look for water for their families in case of extreme, you know, water scarcity.

SHAPIRO: You've been involved in demonstrations here at the COP summit in Glasgow.

(APPLAUSE)

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: The last speaker is Vanessa Nakate...

SHAPIRO: We attended one midday at the center of this hub of thousands of people.

NAKATE: Finance for adaptation is critical, but for many of us in vulnerable countries, adapting to climate change is no longer enough. You cannot adapt to starvation. You cannot adapt to extinction. You cannot adapt to lost culture and heritage.

SHAPIRO: Vanessa Nakate, tell us what this was about, what you were protesting for.

NAKATE: Yeah. President Obama was coming to meet the French youth at the COP. And President Obama and other leaders, they made a promise of a $100 billion climate finance to be given to vulnerable countries. But we are in 2021, and that promise has not yet been delivered. So our, you know, demonstration was to ask the leaders, to ask President Obama to show us the money that was promised.

SHAPIRO: You speak a lot about the way climate change increases inequality and hits the most vulnerable people the hardest. And at the same time, in your book, you write, in some way, we are all Africa. What do you mean by that?

NAKATE: You know, we may be in different worlds right now. And I can say that many communities or many countries on the African continent, they could be in boats that are much weaker or boats that are already sinking or boats that are already on fire. But since we are all facing the same storm, definitely, eventually, all of us will be affected by the climate crisis. So when I say that we are all Africa, the impacts that, you know, people are seeing unfolding on the African continent, these are impacts that are going to start unfolding in different parts of the world if the leaders don't do anything about it.

SHAPIRO: This wall that we're in front of has messages from youth all over the world who know about climate change and care about climate change and want to do things about climate change. But there are also young people who don't know or who feel that they have no power. What would you say to those young people?

NAKATE: Well, I would say that no voice is too small to make a difference and no action is too small to transform our community. Many times, young people think that they need to have so many resources or they need to, you know, have a specific kind of voice or a specific kind of support. When I started my climate strikes, I only had like a marker, like, a pencil to write my sign and also a paper from my sister's art book. So that was the first thing that we used to go to the climate strike. And we just kept on sharing on social media. So I think it's really important for young people across the world to know that you are not too small to make a difference like greater things.

SHAPIRO: Vanessa Nakate, it's so good to talk with you. Thank you very much.

NAKATE: You're welcome. Thank you.

SHAPIRO: Her new book is called "A Bigger Picture: My Fight To Bring A New African Voice To The Climate Crisis." Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Uganda's Vanessa Nakate says COP26 sidelines nations most affected by climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: Vanessa Nakate took the title of her memoir from something that happened at a climate conference last year. She posed for a photo with other activists in Davos, Switzerland. She was the only Black woman among the five. And when The Associated Press published the photo, there were only four faces.

# data[].attributes.body
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding treaty under the UNFCC and between all states with the goal of keeping the global temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius. The treaty was adopted at COP 21 on December 12, 2015 and went into effect on November 4, 2016.

The Paris Agreement is structured around a 5-year cycle of progressively more and more aggressive action to curb global warming. This ambition, and the fact that the Paris Agreement is a landmark international agreement that it is legally binding and involves all states (including the largest polluters) in a collective effort to address climate change, is in and of itself a positive step forward by the international community in preventing the climate catastrophe that is and will continue to disproportionately harm the Global South. Additionally, the Paris Agreement's enhanced transparency framework will hopefully hold even the most powerful countries accountable for their emissions/environmental standards and the promises they have made.

One of the aspects of the Paris Agreement that is especially important for the Global South is the financial, technical and capacity building support written into the document for these developing states. The agreement once again calls on developed nations to contribute financially to aid developing states in mitigating the effects of climate change as well as adapting to new energy sources and environmental standards. In addition, the Paris Agreement reaffirms the principle of sharing technology developed to reduce emissions as well as improve the resilience of states against the negative effects of climate change. This emphasis on technology sharing is important for developing countries who may not have the same resources as developed countries to create or pay for these technologies. Finally, the Paris Agreement emphasizes capacity-building for the states who do not have the capacity to defend against climate change. The emphasis on climate-related capacity-building calls on developed nations to increase support for developing nations in improving their state capacity through climate finance, technology sharing, and more.

The Paris Agreement of course has its shortfalls. Despite being legally binding to all states that have signed on and ratified, like in the case of all international law, there is no solving for the reality of the anarchic international system and state sovereignty. As so clearly displayed by the United States under President Trump, states can choose to leave the treaty and renege on their agreement whenever they choose. And though the agreement sets in place a robust and transparent tracking scheme to hold countries accountable to their requirements, there are no hard enforcement mechanisms built into the treaty to hold unwilling states accountable. Despite this, this Paris Agreement is still a step forward in the right direction with its ambitious goals, transparency and reporting requirements, and its provisions for climate finance, technology sharing, and capacity-building, all of which will aid the Global South in the fight against climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The authoritative information on the status of approval, acceptance, accession and ratification of the Agreement is provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the respective internet page of the United Nations Treaty Depositary under: Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 195 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris, France, on 12 December 2015. It entered into force on 4 November 2016. Currently, as of 27 January 2026, there are 194 Parties to the Paris Agreement.

Its overarching goal is to hold "the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels" and pursue efforts "to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

However, in recent years, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the end of this century.

That's because the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change impacts, including more frequent and severe droughts, heatwaves and rainfall.

To limit global warming to 1.5°C, greenhouse gas emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030.

The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations together to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.

How does the Paris Agreement work?

Implementation of the Paris Agreement requires economic and social transformation, based on the best available science. The Paris Agreement works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action -- or, ratcheting up -- carried out by countries. Since 2020, countries have been submitting their national climate action plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Each successive NDC is meant to reflect an increasingly higher degree of ambition compared to the previous version.

Recognizing that accelerated action is required to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the COP27 cover decision requests Parties to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their NDCs to align with the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2023, taking into account different national circumstances.

Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)

In their NDCs, countries communicate actions they will take to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in order to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. Countries also communicate in their NDCs actions they will take to build resilience to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

Long-Term Strategies

To better frame the efforts towards the long-term goal, the Paris Agreement invites countries to formulate and submit long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies (LT-LEDS).

LT-LEDS provide the long-term horizon to the NDCs. Unlike NDCs, they are not mandatory. Nevertheless, they place the NDCs into the context of countries' long-term planning and development priorities, providing a vision and direction for future development.

How are countries supporting one another?

The Paris Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical and capacity building support to those countries who need it.

Finance

The Paris Agreement reaffirms that developed countries should take the lead in providing financial assistance to countries that are less endowed and more vulnerable, while for the first time also encouraging voluntary contributions by other Parties. Climate finance is needed for mitigation, because large-scale investments are required to significantly reduce emissions. Climate finance is equally important for adaptation, as significant financial resources are needed to adapt to the adverse effects and reduce the impacts of a changing climate.

Technology

The Paris Agreement speaks of the vision of fully realizing technology development and transfer for both improving resilience to climate change and reducing GHG emissions. It establishes a technology framework to provide overarching guidance to the well-functioning Technology Mechanism. The mechanism is accelerating technology development and transfer through its policy and implementation arms.

Capacity-Building

Not all developing countries have sufficient capacities to deal with many of the challenges brought by climate change. As a result, the Paris Agreement places great emphasis on climate-related capacity-building for developing countries and requests all developed countries to enhance support for capacity-building actions in developing countries.

How are we tracking progress?

With the Paris Agreement, countries established an enhanced transparency framework (ETF). Under ETF, starting in 2024, countries will report transparently on actions taken and progress in climate change mitigation, adaptation measures and support provided or received. It also provides for international procedures for the review of the submitted reports.

The information gathered through the ETF will feed into the Global stocktake which will assess the collective progress towards the long-term climate goals.

This will lead to recommendations for countries to set more ambitious plans in the next round.

What have we achieved so far?

Although climate change action needs to be massively increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked low-carbon solutions and new markets. More and more countries, regions, cities and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive across economic sectors representing 25% of emissions. This trend is most noticeable in the power and transport sectors and has created many new business opportunities for early movers.

By 2030, zero-carbon solutions could be competitive in sectors representing over 70% of global emissions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The authoritative information on the status of approval, acceptance, accession and ratification of the Agreement is provided by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, on the respective internet page of the United Nations Treaty Depositary under: Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
7. The UN Climate Partnerships for the Global South

# data[].attributes.subject
7. The UN Climate Partnerships for the Global South

# data[].attributes.body
The UN Climate Partnership for the Global South, also known as the Southern Climate Partnership Incubator (SCPI), is a initiative of the UN meant to help initiate, facilitate, and support partnerships among countries that will help states of the Global South deal with climate change. The initiative is mainly focused on the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 Agenda. By facilitating partnerships between countries within the Global South and also between countries of the Global North and South, the SCPI is an example of an IGO addressing the issue of disparate impacts of climate change on states of the Global South who often do not have the resources, infrastructure, finances, or capacity to carry out climate goals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About the UN Climate Partnerships for the Global South

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United Nations has launched the Climate Partnerships for the Global South - also known as Southern Climate Partnership Incubator - to initiate, facilitate, and support partnerships that will help developing countries address climate change. What is this initiative? Why does this initiative exist? What are the areas of focus?

# data[].attributes.body
The Climate Vulnerable Forum is an international partnership of multiple states (of the Global South) who all face precarious futures due to climate change. The CVF is a platform for South-South cooperation in the fight against the warming climate and its disastrous effects. The CVF was founded in 2009 and is made up of 48 member states from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific. Together, these states represent approximately 1.2 billion people whose homes, communities, and livelihoods are threatened by climate change.

The states meet routinely (often in conjunction with Conferences of Parties under the UNFCC) to discuss the progression of climate change, individual efforts at reducing emissions, and joint policy. The group also commissions scientific reports on climate change, authors reports on states' climate change policies, adopts declarations and roadmaps for climate policies for their own members, and utilize their collective power to implore other nations to take action to curb emissions and halt further warming. Recently, the CVF have made a concerted effort to push nations to uphold their promises under the Paris Agreement (especially their Climate Finance promises as mentioned in the Al Jazeera article).

The Climate Vulnerable Forum is important because it is an example of international cooperation between states to address collective problems. Though the membership and therefore global reach is smaller relative to larger IGOs like the UN, the CVF plays an important role in aiding the Global South. Because it is more regional (though encompassing states on several continents), the focus is on states facing similar problems with similar goals. Even though climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions, smaller IGOs made up of states of the Global South may make it easier to focus in on problems especially faced by these states and create solutions when there are fewer competing interests from the Global North.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The CVF first met near Male', Maldives in November 2009 gathering Heads of State, Ministers and other government leaders representing countries threatened by climate change from around the world. It has since been active in building cooperation, knowledge and awareness on climate change issues. At the CVF High-Level Meeting held during the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Paris (COP21), the Manila-Paris Declaration and the 2016-2018 Roadmap of the CVF, adopted at this meeting, spell out the CVF's planned efforts during this time period. The Marrakech Communique and CVF Vision adopted at the subsequent 2016 Forum meeting at UNFCCC COP22 committed Forum members to ambitious climate action, striving, among others, to achieve maximal resilience and to meet 100% domestic renewable energy production as rapidly as possible

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The CVF first met near Male', Maldives in November 2009 gathering Heads of State, Ministers and other government leaders representing countries threatened by climate change from around the world. It has since been active in building cooperation, knowledge and awareness on climate change issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
9. Climate vulnerable in the Global South demand COP26 action

# data[].attributes.subject
9. Climate vulnerable in the Global South demand COP26 action

# data[].attributes.body
This Al Jazeera article discusses the perspective of nations of the Global South on the COP26 negotiations. The article mentions the Climate Vulnerable Forum and their critique of larger, industrialized nations contributing little to climate change solutions while contributing the most to emissions. At COP26, members of the CVF advocated for the Glasgow Emergency Pact. This written pledge would include $100 billion per year in climate finance from developed nations for developing nations. This video in this article explains that climate finance refers to financing in order to transition away from carbon-based economies and mitigate the effects of climate change in the most vulnerable countries. States in the Global North had previously committed to providing these funds by 2020 but have failed to do so.

This article and the critique from the CVF clearly demonstrates that though there may be international agreements and promises made by states for funding and for action, these promises are not always kept due to lack of direct enforcement mechanisms in the international system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate vulnerable in the Global South demand COP26 action

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Those on the front line of extreme weather say words from world leaders are no longer enough.

# data[].attributes.headline
10. How Deep Is the North-South Divide on Climate Negotiations?

# data[].attributes.subject
10. How Deep Is the North-South Divide on Climate Negotiations?

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses the reality of climate negotiations among nations of the Global North and the Global South and the divisions between them. These negations remain distinctly colored by the inequity between developed and developing nations in terms of impacts of climate change as well as the impacts of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. Written in October of 2021, the author argues that a focus on equity will be essential for the success of the COP26 talks.

First is the issue of culpability. Industrialized nations are largely responsible for both historic and current emissions. The U.S. is the largest emitter of GHGs to date, followed by the EU countries. China's historic contributions are only about half of those by the United States. India and Brazil as well as the entire African continent are not large historic emitters of GHGs that contribute to climate change. Equity concerns emerge when it comes to a states' total contributions to the problem of climate change versus the burden they face due to climate change. Developing nations who have not been historic emitters of CO2 and other GHGs are more vulnerable to climate disasters, economic failures, and loss of life due to climate change relative to developed, richer countries of the Global North. This inequity also creates an issue of intergenerational justice.

Next comes equity in terms of mitigation. Many countries of the Global South argue that industrialized and post-industrialized nations should bear the greatest responsibility for climate change mitigation (reducing emissions, switching to renewables, etc.) as opposed to developing nations who have not had the opportunity to reap the economic and industrial benefits of cheap fuel sources. Developing countries argue that they should be free to pursue economic development the same way developed countries did during the industrial revolutions and the years following. Essentially, these states push for the UN-supported principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities."

Additionally, there is the problem of funding mitigation versus funding adaptation. Developed countries do most of the international agenda setting and have focused funding efforts on mitigation rather than adaptation and resilience. Part of this may be due to the perceived positives of mitigation efforts relative to adaptation. With mitigation, emissions are overall reduced and result in widespread benefit for all people, as well as better returns on investment for financiers. Adaptation, on the other hand, is usually focused on one region, resulting in a more localized beneficial effect and less financial incentives for investors. Developing nations want more funding put towards adaptation efforts and call on developed nations to honor their promises under the Paris Agreement of climate financing meant to build resilience in the Global South.

Another issue coming up in North-South climate negotiations is the problem of pricing climate emissions and the impacts of their implementation. One scheme for pricing climate emissions that is promoted by many in the Global North is the development of an emissions trading system (EFT), also known as a cap-and-trade system. An EFT would cap the total amount of GHG emissions allowed and let firms with lower emissions sell their allotted surplus to firms with higher emissions. Under a system like this, the market would determine the rate and regulators would determine the cap. Proponents argue that EFTs shift the burden of mitigation to the actual polluters, companies. Critics argue that such as system would be detrimental to the economies and industries of developing nations. The system puts emissions from essential services like producing electricity for homes on the same level as factories. It also would not differentiate emissions standards between developed and developing countries, cutting off developing countries from the same opportunities to industrialize as countries in the Global North once had. Additionally, a new market price for emissions may be too high for economies in the Global South to absorb, leading to curtailed economic activity and job loss.

In sum, this source provides a valuable look into the disagreements on solutions to climate change between the North and South with a particular focus on equity concerns for the Global South. This equity-focused perspective is essential when considering how to aid developing states in dealing with climate change. Only by taking these concerns into account can effective policy be developed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At their core, climate negotiations continue to be shaped by equity concerns between postindustrial countries in the Global North and emerging economies in the Global South. The debate is largely over which countries have contributed most to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change should be shared. How effectively the principle of equity will be embodied in global efforts to combat climate change will help determine the scope and ambition of these efforts.

Tallying Past and Present Emissions Amid Equity Concerns

Industrialized and postindustrialized nations are responsible for a great share of the historical carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in the atmosphere today (see figure 1). The United States has emitted more carbon than any other country to date and is responsible for 25 percent of historical emissions. Next in line are the twenty-seven countries of the EU (plus the UK), which are responsible for 22 percent of global CO ₂ emissions. Meanwhile, China's historical contributions are estimated to be around 12.7 percent. By contrast, India (3 percent) and Brazil (0.9 percent) have not been large contributors to global emissions in a historical sense. Similarly, the contributions of African countries (3 percent combined), relative to the continent's population size, has also been very small.

In addition, the Global North continues to have much higher per capita emissions than much of the world even today (see figure 2). The United States ranked high among postindustrialized countries in 2019 with 16 tonnes of CO ₂ emissions per capita, just behind Australia (16.3 tonnes per capita) and ahead of Canada (15.4 tonnes per capita). The figures for Europe generally fall between 5 and 10 tonnes per capita depending on the country. Hydrocarbon-based economies like Russia and members of the Gulf Cooperation Council in the Persian Gulf like Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates also rank quite high, some of them even higher than countries in the Global North.

Equity concerns essentially stem from the asymmetry between countries' emissions and their respective burdens to respond to climate change (including the costs of emissions mitigation, adaptation, and other impacts and risks). Most human-driven GHG emissions in the atmosphere are from economic activities performed in or for affluent countries. Yet a more significant burden of the impacts of climate change is carried by poorer nations weathering climate-induced environmental shocks.

A further dividing line in climate negotiations is a result of the contrast between past emissions and future emissions. While industrialized and postindustrialized countries in the Global North are responsible for the majority of past emissions, these countries led by the EU are implementing policies to reduce their GHG emissions. At the same time, the emissions of most developing nations (particularly China) remain on an upward trajectory. This second group of countries will not reach peak emissions for another decade at least. As a result, developing countries share the responsibility for reducing future emissions. These juxtaposed trends also create issues of generational justice.

These differences coupled with the immediacy of the effects of climate change also shape the diplomatic groups engaging in multilateral climate negotiations. Subgroups among countries in the Global South and issue-based coalitions of countries in the Global North and South have emerged on the basis of common concerns. Less developed economies and small island nations, which are already facing the existential threat of climate change, are demanding immediate answers from postindustrialized and developing countries alike. The members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are urging postindustrialized economies to embrace policies that reduce welfare losses in nations that rely on petroleum exports.

Although all uphold the principle that developed and developing countries have different responsibilities for mitigating carbon emissions, as established at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, the four countries in the BASIC grouping split when Brazil and South Africa accepted greater responsibility than India and China. More recently, however, China announced in September 2020 (to widespread praise) its intention to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060, and Chinese leader Xi Jinping further unveiled plans to curtail (or even end) Chinese funding for overseas coal power plans in September 2021. Yet the equity principle in the global debate over adjustments to climate change still leads to several important, commonly held policy positions among developing countries on mitigating GHG emissions, adapting to climate change, and financing the climate transition.

Mitigating Climate Change

First, developing countries generally expect postindustrialized nations to lead efforts to reduce GHG emissions. In multilateral climate negotiations, India articulated the basic positions on climate change held by many emerging economies on the respective roles of developed and developing countries. As Sandeep Sengupta has put it:
First, the primary responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions . . . rested with the developed world. . . . Second, the emissions of developing countries were still very low and needed to grow to meet their future development [needs]. . . . Third, any formal agreement on climate change needed to provide for technology transfer and funds for developing countries to help them address this challenge.
Latin American countries have also regularly emphasized that their historical contributions to the problem of climate change are minimal and that developed countries therefore bear more responsibility for working to mitigate its effects and otherwise help developing countries adapt with financing, technology, and other resources. In Latin America, the term climate justice is used to express the need for developed countries to pay their environmental and ecological debt to developing countries affected by climate change and help them remedy its effects.

Meanwhile, African countries have emphasized their need to be free to pursue economic development at least to some degree through new and existing deposits of fossil fuels. These countries firmly believe that it is unjust for immediate and severe mitigating targets to be erected without any form of compensation or financial aid. The African continent has plenty of fossil fuels, but the global shift away from hydrocarbons may cause further economic losses. According to a United Nations University report, oil, gas, and minerals contribute to over half of African GDP and account for around 70 percent of African exports. As the global economy transitions to greener, more renewable energy systems, African countries with large deposits of fossil fuels will pay a high price for not extracting these resources, a price for which they believe they should be compensated.

In addition, African countries will increasingly face the social, economic, financial, and governance challenges of responding to climate disruptions. They believe that the Global North has failed to acknowledge the extent of this economic stunting and these structural inequities. Some of these countries are vulnerable and have few resources, so they require regional and international assistance. Despite these considerations, any mention of the special vulnerabilities of African countries was excluded from the text of the Paris Agreement. African countries have been attempting to rectify this ever since.

China has also backed the position of developing countries writ large, emphasizing the historical responsibilities of postindustrialized nations. At an April 2021 climate summit convened by U.S. President Joe Biden, Xi stated:
Developed countries need to increase [their] climate ambition and action . . . they need to make concrete efforts to help developing countries strengthen the capacity and resilience against climate change, support them in financing, technology, and capacity building, and refrain from creating green trade barriers, so as to help developing countries accelerate the transition to green and low-carbon development.
Yet China's position on climate change remains controversial given its current and rising levels of carbon emissions. China reportedly emitted an estimated 27 percent of global GHG emissions in 2019-more than twice as much as the second-ranking country (the United States with 11 percent) and more than the combined emissions of all developed nations. China's emissions ballooned by a factor of more than three in the past three decades, according to the Rhodium Group.

More generally, developing countries insist on the recognition of the UN-enshrined principles of "common but differentiated responsibilities" and "respective capabilities" between postindustrial and developing countries for reducing GHG emissions. This claim takes into account differences in countries' historical contributions to global emissions as well as developing countries' need to have flexible policy options for spurring economic development.

But the future paradigms of economic and urban development will likely be very different from past ones. As things stand, policymakers around the world lack a proper understanding of how development in a climate-disrupted world will look. It is difficult for many developing nations to craft policy responses to address this new reality and these uncertainties. Their development goals and strategies remain embedded in past experience, which in all likelihood will not provide an adequate vision to drive sustainable growth in the future.

Adapting to Climate Change

Although developing countries have put equity concerns on the agenda for climate negotiations, postindustrialized countries have largely done the agenda setting, which thus far primarily has focused on mitigating climate change, as opposed to adapting to its effects through resilience. The vast majority of green finance is earmarked for climate mitigation initiatives, which lower emissions from existing sources. For example, according to San Bilal and Pamella Eunice Ahairwe, the European Investment Bank allocated only $432 million for climate adaptation, even as it poured more than ten times that amount (nearly $5.3 billion) into climate mitigation efforts. These mitigation-focused initiatives allow funders to earn solid returns on their investment. The benefits of decreasing those emissions are felt around the world, resulting in widespread societal returns. Funds to help communities adapt to and weather the effects of climate change, on the other hand, are often used for initiatives with more localized benefits. As a result, these projects typically have lower financial incentives and more concentrated societal benefits, making them less appealing to potential funders.

Yet developing nations want the disproportionate burden of weathering the impact of climate change and the costs of adaptation to take center stage in the climate debate. Emerging economies are calling on developed countries to honor their financial pledges and help them build resilience. Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries pledged to furnish $100 billion per year for climate action. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the pledged money actually flowing to developing countries may have reached nearly $80 billion in 2019. This figure nonetheless has been controversial. India has, for instance, raised issues with the skewed flows of climate financing. After all, the bulk of climate finance (more than 90 percent) continues to be tapped for climate mitigation even though developing countries need funds focused on adaptation.

Financing Climate Assistance

The support of postindustrialized economies will be critical for helping developing countries-through financial assistance, capacity building, and technology-as the latter undergo a green transition.

Consider, for instance, how most of the obligations of African countries under the Paris Agreement are conditional on such support. The African Development Bank has estimated that African countries will need $20 billion to $30 billion per year for climate adaptation until 2030 or so. This amount could increase to $50 billion per year by 2050 even if temperature rises are kept in check (below 2 degrees Celsius), according to a 2015 UN report. Meanwhile, the acceleration of climate disruptions suggests that even the most advanced climate models still may be underestimating the pace and extent of climate disruptions.

A host of developing countries have explicitly tied the availability of climate finance to their mitigation ambitions. For example, in a 2019 report, the Indian government argued that in contrast to its significant needs, global financial flows to India were miniscule. The document explicitly tied India's ability to meet its Paris Agreement obligations to access to climate financing, stating, "in order to respond to the worldwide call for stepping up climate actions, [there will need] . . . adequate provision of means of implementation to developing countries. Climate finance is a key pillar in enabling climate actions.

A welcome development has been the newfound enthusiasm of China and the United States for allocating more funding to help countries adapt to climate change. China has prioritized efforts to help the world's least developed countries, such as African nations and small island states. Ahead of the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris, Xi established the China South-South Climate Cooperation Fund to provide 20 billion renminbi ($3.1 billion) to help developing countries tackle climate change. Subsequently, at the summit itself, Xi elaborated on his commitment, stating that China would implement ten low-carbon industrial parks, 100 climate mitigation and adaptation projects, and 1,000 training opportunities on climate change for participants from developing countries. Climate policy is a pillar of Beijing's charm offensive to increase its soft power worldwide as well as an economic policy aimed to enhancing market access for Chinese goods.

The EU and more recently the United States have been among the leading contributors to the instruments of climate finance. In 2019, the EU provided the largest share of external public funding for climate projects to the tune of 23.2 billion euros (about $26 billion). Meanwhile, Washington has promised to significantly increase its contributions to climate finance for developing nations to around $11 billion per year.

Pricing Carbon Emissions

In addition to the prevailing divisions over mitigation responsibilities and climate finance allocations, another highly divisive issue between developed countries and the developing world is the potential impact of the carbon pricing schemes that several countries in the Global North are gradually implementing.

Postindustrialized countries view carbon pricing not only as a tool to raise additional public revenues but also as a way to account for the negative externalities of carbon emissions. To this end, some have suggested the creation of a global carbon pricing mechanism, in the form of a tax or an emissions trading system (ETS). With carbon taxes, regulators set a price on carbon by defining a tax rate on GHG emissions or the carbon content of fossil fuels, while emissions reductions depend on the corresponding measures taken by companies. For instance, the International Monetary Fund states that large GHG-emitting countries need to introduce a carbon tax of $75 per ton or more by 2030 to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming.

An ETS-a cap-and-trade system-puts a ceiling on the total level of GHG emissions and allows firms with low emissions to sell their surplus allowances to those who emit more. Under an ETS, the market determines the price, while regulators determine the quantity of emissions reductions. The effectiveness of the ETS model remains debated, with some claiming that it allows larger polluters to continue polluting the atmosphere by acquiring emissions rights.

The chief strength of such a global price mechanism for carbon is its potential ability to shift the burden for mitigating the harm caused by climate change onto the market players that are responsible for this harm and can reduce it. Such mechanisms would encourage producers in all countries to adopt low- or zero-carbon technologies by sending an economic signal instead of dictating who should reduce emissions and how they should do so. Such price mechanisms would remove uncertainty for the private carbon-offset markets, which companies and individuals use to compensate for their emissions. Specifically, supporters claim that a price that is applied simultaneously in all countries may help level the international playing field.

Meanwhile, critics argue that global carbon pricing tends to treat inevitable and unavoidable emissions like electricity generation for consumption in poor households on par with other categories of emissions and fails to allocate emissions rights fairly between developing and developed countries. A global ETS would leave less room for developing economies to burn fossil fuels to meet their economic needs. The increase in energy costs that would arise from reduced fuel consumption in wealthier countries may curtail economic activity in markets that cannot absorb such price changes. In countries where the economic structures depend on energy-intensive activities that are heavily exposed to international competition, industries fear that competitive disadvantages in international markets could result in job losses.

For these reasons, developing countries tend to reject ETSs for sidelining the multilaterally agreed-upon international regime and establishing ad hoc norms. They view ETS schemes as protectionist measures at odds with the rules of international trade. They want multilateral negotiations to lead norm creation, as these focus not just on mitigation targets but also on minimizing subsequent welfare losses.

A second and more recent policy option discussed in developed countries is a domestic carbon tax levied together with border adjustments on imports from countries that do not impose an equivalent carbon duty on their producers. Led by the EU, supporters of this approach view it as an efficient way to let the consumers of postindustrial economies take responsibility for their GHG footprint both domestically and in the emissions of other countries. The underlying logic rests on an expectation that unilaterally imposed border adjustments would provide a building block toward global price mechanisms by incentivizing exporting countries to impose equivalent domestic carbon taxes to prevent companies from paying taxes at the importing country's borders. Proponents propose that the revenue collected at the border could be channelled to overseas climate aid programs to prevent the mechanism from functioning as a de facto tariff.

From the perspective of developing countries, however, a carbon border-adjustment mechanism incorporates several pitfalls. A carbon tax may raise the price of energy-intensive products such as steel and cement, which would increase construction costs and imperil infrastructure projects in developing countries that import these products. When imposed only by the importing countries, domestic carbon pricing would hinder the competitiveness of exporters. Developing countries have less capacity to offer offsets to their companies in the industrial sectors that would suffer a resulting competitive disadvantage against international competition. Moreover, border adjustments can act as tariffs because if carbon taxes are imposed at the importing country's border, rather than within the exporting country, the importing country gets to keep the tax revenue with no assurances over how the funds would be used. In light of these considerations, developing countries view these types of policies as a disguised form of protectionism.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the cleavages in international climate negotiations between the Global North and the Global South are driven by the need for an adequately ambitious global response to climate change. In other words, the current agenda of the Conference of Parties' (COP) gatherings under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change may not be comprehensive enough to tackle this structural and critical challenge. COP meetings like the upcoming Glasgow Climate Change Conference in October and November 2021 provide a forum for exchanging views and deliberating about climate mitigation and adaptation.

But these global discussions need to be more open and ambitious and must account for the needs of developing countries, not just postindustrial ones. There are other important matters these deliberations cannot ignore. For instance, there is a need to address issues like climate-induced migrations and an overhaul of the international regime governing the treatment of refugees. These discussions should also include proposals to reform the intellectual property rights regime to incentivize a clean development agenda for the developing world. A fair settlement on the burdens of adjusting to the realities of climate change can only emerge if a broader policy agenda can be constructively promoted.
Carnegie Europe is grateful to the Open Society Foundations for their support for this work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Deep Is the North-South Divide on Climate Negotiations?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At their core, climate negotiations continue to be shaped by equity concerns between postindustrial countries in the Global North and emerging economies in the Global South. The debate is largely over which countries have contributed most to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change should be shared.

# data[].attributes.headline
11. The Glasgow climate pact, annotated (plus other source linked below)

# data[].attributes.subject
11. The Glasgow climate pact, annotated (plus other source linked below)

# data[].attributes.body
The Glasgow Pact is one of the culminating products of COP26. It is an agreement between nearly 200 countries on reducing the use of coal and the emission of greenhouse gases. Though it is not a perfect document and has been widely criticized by activists and some states of the Global South, it is a compromise and step forward towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement and preventing any more than 2 degrees Celsius increase in global temperature. The pact clearly lays out the severity of the global threat of climate change as well as makes it clear that only by limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius (preferably 1.5) will we avoid catastrophic conditions. It is also explicitly said that reductions in the usage of non-renewable energy sources like fossil fuels and reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases is necessary to keep global warming down.

Key components of the Glasgow Pact that are important for states in the Global South that face increased risk due to climate change are the calls for at least double the amount of climate finance funds distributed in 2019 from developed nations to developing nations by 2025. This increased financial commitment was a key goal of developing nations during COP 26. Additionally, the pact emphasizes the role of multilateral development banks, other financial institutions, and the private sector in providing climate finance. The pact also calls for increased efforts of technology sharing and capacity-building between developed and developing nations. Another important point is that the pact reemphasizes that though the climate is a shared space and a common responsibility of all people, there are also different responsibilities for different states based on their capacity, development status, and missions to eradicate poverty in their country. This recognizes the common argument made by developing nations that they cannot be expected to reduce fossil fuel usage and emissions at the same rate as developed nations who are only developed because they were able to grow and industrialize with cheaper energy sources and little to no regulations.

The Glasgow Pact is far from perfect. Many criticize its weakness and point out that it calls on states to "phase-down" coal use rather than phase-out. In particular, Pacific Island nations criticized the agreement, saying that the weak language will do little to stop the rate of GHG emissions that are contributing to climate change. Their nations are especially vulnerable to climate change as sea levels rise, people are pushed out of their homes, and many of their industries fail. Leaders of these nations criticized these incremental approaches, saying by the time real climate action is taken, it will be too late for their islands (See: Pacific island leaders bemoan weak Glasgow climate pact).

Additionally, the pact did not make any firm commitments for financing for loss and damages Global South countries have already faced from climate change. Language calling for financial assistance put in by developing countries was removed from the agreement (See: ‘Betrayal of people, planet’: World reacts to COP26 climate pact).

However this new international agreement is another compromise among very different nations and a step in the right direction. It reinforces provisions from the landmark Paris Agreement as well as increases the amount of funding for Climate Finance. Whether countries will keep their commitments and whether the pact will be enforced in any way remains to be seen.