GA81 Press Conference: AOSIS & LDCs on Climate

Speakers

Adao Soares Barbosa, LDC Chair

Anne Rasmussen, AOSIS Lead Climate Negotiator

Bianca Beddoe, AOSIS Media Advisor (moderator)

The recording begins partway through the LDC Chair's opening remarks.

Barbosa: …and to renewable energy systems, alongside scaled-up adaptation and support for loss and damage.

Despite limited resources, LDCs have made every effort to strengthen the global response to climate change. We have submitted ambitious NDCs and national adaptation plans. However, we cannot realize our ambition without adequate support. The multilateral process must respond to our unique context and deliver finance at the scale and speed that the Paris Agreement requires.

This year, we need to see clear progress towards tripling adaptation finance, with a strong focus on grants and highly concessional resources, including through the replenishment of the LDCF and SCCF. We welcome the initiative by the COP31 Presidency to advance a joint declaration and action plan to enhance access to finance for SIDS and LDCs. We expect it to translate commitment into concrete action that addresses the challenges our countries experience.

Earlier this month in Timor-Leste, our LDC ministers also adopted the 26-point Dili Declaration, which lays out our COP31 priorities in detail.

In closing, we urge the international community to show courage, solidarity and commitment, and rise to the challenge. Thank you very much.

Beddoe: Thank you very much, Ambassador. Our AOSIS Chair, Ambassador Ilana Seid, sends her apologies. She is unable to join at the moment. Representing the Chair, we have our AOSIS Lead Climate Change Negotiator, Ms. Anne Rasmussen. Anne, the floor is yours.

Rasmussen: Thank you very much, Madam Moderator. Excellencies, colleagues and esteemed members of the media, as Bianca mentioned, I am making these remarks on behalf of Ambassador Seid, who is currently attending the General Assembly opening. There are a lot of events happening in parallel, so it is quite hectic here at the General Assembly. But we are happy to join Ambassador Adao, the Chair of the LDCs, for this joint press conference at a very opportune time here in New York.

As leaders gather in New York for the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, we are calling on countries to treat escalating climate change impacts with the urgency this crisis merits. Clear, concrete commitments must be set out to respond effectively to climate change and realign with 1.5.

Yesterday, we attended the launch of the COP31 Action Agenda. The World Meteorological Organization spoke there and highlighted that the last two months have been the hottest on record, and that sea-level rise is unprecedented. This cannot be business as usual. Last year's Global Tipping Points report warned that ice sheets have already been at risk since roughly 1 degree Celsius of warming, with a likely tipping point of around 1.5 degrees Celsius. The best available science shows we have to get back below 1.5 to minimize or prevent the risk of rapid ice sheet loss in the long term. Each fraction of a degree of warming increases the risk of irreversible sea-level rise.

Yet we have had to watch in horror as our brothers and sisters in Nepal experience catastrophe. In Fiji, plans are advancing to relocate communities as climate change intensifies sea-level rise, landslides and extreme rainfall. In the Caribbean, drought-struck farmers and citizens are facing no relief, all while grappling with extreme heat. And the recent UNEP report warns that the world is likely to temporarily overshoot 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Will this finally be a wake-up call? AOSIS has been sounding this alarm for years. We reiterate that 1.5 is not an arbitrary goal that would be nice to achieve. It is the legally affirmed limit, endorsed by the UN General Assembly and committed to by countries, to protect people, ecosystems and economies. The best available science shows that limiting the magnitude and duration of overshoot, and getting global warming back under 1.5 degrees Celsius, is possible. We absolutely cannot surrender our pursuit of 1.5. The pathway to 1.5 has already been laid out in the GST. We know we must transition away from fossil fuels in a just manner, tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.

Coming out of the Secretary-General's high-level meeting on climate action and just transition here at UNGA 81, AOSIS insists on clear commitments to empower SIDS. First, we look forward to a clear commitment from the COP31 Presidencies that a SIDS plan will be selected through the Global Implementation Accelerator, and that implementation will be inclusive of SIDS. Second, access to climate finance for SIDS must be a declared priority. Solutions are futile if our countries cannot access the means of implementation and resources for essential adaptation. Climate finance must be accessible, affordable, predictable and responsive to our vulnerability.

We head to COP31 to push for outcomes that keep 1.5 alive; accelerate delivery of NDCs and NAPs; deliver affordable and accessible finance for SIDS and LDCs; progress the operationalization of the just transition; operationalize the COP30 decision for developed countries to triple adaptation finance by 2035; and enable implementation of the Global Goal on Adaptation.

The Belém Mission to 1.5 must not be another report. It must be a blueprint for implementation. SIDS fought hard for this in Belém last year. We cannot make a mockery of multilateralism. Limiting overshoot and returning to 1.5 is not optional. It is an obligation. Here at this UNGA session, progress on cooperation and commitments must continue so that 1.5 remains our North Star. Thank you.

Beddoe: Thank you very much. We now open the floor to questions. The first question is for Ambassador Barbosa. Why should the LDCF and the SCCF be replaced, and replaced with what? Ambassador, can you share your insights on this?

Barbosa: Thank you very much for the question. I said replenishment, not replacement. These funds are already established, and they were not easy to establish. What we are proposing is to replenish them: to put more resources there so they can sufficiently address the gaps we are facing. That is the key.

For LDCs, the finance currently available is still insufficient to address our adaptation needs. That is why we need additional financial resources. This will enable us to implement the national adaptation plans we have already submitted, and the adaptation and mitigation priorities in the NDCs submitted by the LDCs.

The same applies to the SCCF. We are asking partners to provide more financial resources. So, not replacement, but replenishment. That means adding more financial resources to these two funds to facilitate implementation of adaptation and mitigation priorities in LDCs, and in the case of the SCCF, also in SIDS. That is my point. Thank you very much.

Beddoe: Thank you, Ambassador. Anne, we have a question for you. Regarding the COP30 pledge to triple adaptation finance by 2030, what does AOSIS consider the baseline for that figure?

Rasmussen: Sorry, coming back in. Sorry, Bianca, I had some technical difficulties at my end. At a minimum, we are using the doubling amount of $40 billion as the baseline. But we have not yet confirmed that going forward towards COP31.

Beddoe: Thank you, Anne. Now we have a question for both the Ambassador and Anne. The UN Secretary-General called on countries to deliver national plans to transition away from fossil fuels. France and the Netherlands have led the way in publishing their own plans. Is this something you hope can make it into the COP30 outcome? And will the fossil fuel conversation continue, or should it focus on national plans? Ambassador Barbosa, would you like to lead on this? Ambassador Barbosa?

Barbosa: My apologies for the technical problems.

Beddoe: No worries.

Barbosa: Fossil fuel reduction was part of the outcome of the first Global Stocktake. For LDCs, we expect to further request the major emitting countries to limit their emissions from that sector. But for LDCs, we also need to apply CBDR. At the same time, LDCs will try our best to reduce our use of fossil fuels, but this will depend on national circumstances. The Paris Agreement recognizes the special circumstances of LDCs and small island developing states, sustainable development and poverty eradication, and national circumstances.

So the national circumstances of LDCs need to be considered when we discuss fossil fuel reduction. But the major emitting countries and developed country parties really need to reduce their current fossil fuel dependency in the energy sector.

Beddoe: Thank you, Ambassador. Anne, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this as well.

Rasmussen: Thank you very much, Bianca. We do welcome the plans that countries have put forward, including France and the Netherlands. What is needed beyond plans is actual commitment and implementation. As Ambassador Adao mentioned, we still need to consider implementation of the energy package from GST1, which is still pending. The fossil fuel conversation must continue, as fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change. SIDS have been very ambitious. We have put forward our plans for energy transition in our NDCs, and these should be the basis for transitioning away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for adequate support to implement these plans. Thank you.

Beddoe: Sorry, Anne, I think we may have lost you for a second there.

Rasmussen: Oh, can you hear me now?

Beddoe: Yes, we can hear you.

Rasmussen: You didn't hear me. Okay. I'll be brief. As Ambassador Adao mentioned, we still need to consider implementation of the energy package from GST1. We welcome the plans that countries have put forward, but what is needed is implementation and actual commitment. Of course, the fossil fuel conversation must continue, as fossil fuels are the main driver of climate change.

SIDS have already put forward our plans for energy transition in our NDCs. Unfortunately, funding and adequate support to implement these NDCs are still pending. Heading towards COP31, we hope the conversations continue on support to implement our NDCs, on implementing the energy package from GST1, on fossil fuels, and on the NDCs put forward by the major emitters. Thank you.

Beddoe: Thank you, Anne. I would also like both of you to comment on this question. The COP31 agenda is heavy on voluntary pledges and light on the negotiating agenda. There isn't much expected in the way of tackling fossil fuel use, which is driving temperature rise and 1.5C overshoot. Is that enough for AOSIS and the LDCs? Do voluntary pledges treat this crisis with the urgency it deserves in this year of record global temperatures, heat waves and disasters? Let's go to Anne, and then Ambassador Barbosa.

Rasmussen: Thank you, Bianca. That is a very heavy question for this morning. We understand it, because the question is built in many parts. But aside from the voluntary pledges, we also have GST1 implementation still to consider. We have not yet agreed on the implementation of GST1. We will also be discussing the Just Transition Work Programme and the mechanism heading towards COP31. So there is still a lot of work to be done heading towards COP31 to address some of these concerns.

Beddoe: Ambassador Barbosa, would you like to weigh in?

Barbosa: Voluntary pledges are very good for us. But the most important thing is how they can support the efforts of developing countries to take action on transitioning from fossil fuels to clean and renewable energy. That is very important for us. Voluntary pledges of finance are really good. We can also engage various sources. Voluntary pledges should come from both public and private sources. That would be really good, but they need to be accountable. We need to use the transparency framework under Article 13 of the Paris Agreement. Pledges should be captured in the biennial transparency reports, national communications and so on. We need to know how much has been provided, and what action has been taken to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

So voluntary pledges are good, but accountability is very much needed. And of course, pledges for small island developing states and LDCs would be really good to address our needs on adaptation, loss and damage, and mitigation. As the UNEP report on overshoot shows, loss and damage will increase. So we need to consider loss and damage, adaptation and mitigation. Pledges should not only be for mitigation. We need to consider all of them. Thank you very much.

Beddoe: Thank you, Ambassador. We have a question on the loss and damage fund. What accountability mechanism will guarantee that loss and damage funds reach frontline communities without bureaucratic delays? And how can we ensure that loss and damage funds prioritize communities already experiencing displacement and cultural loss? Anne, would you like to take this one?

Rasmussen: Thanks, Bianca. It is important to note that there are still a lot of requests and projects coming into the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage. We have to acknowledge the significant amount of work required to establish the fund. I think one of the questions was about the adequate level of funding. Is that one of the concerns? I didn't catch all of it.

Beddoe: Sorry, Anne. The question was: what accountability mechanism will guarantee that loss and damage funds reach frontline communities without bureaucratic delays? It flows into another question, which I will come back to once you have responded.

Rasmussen: Okay. The call for funding requests is made under the BIM, which sets the criteria for selecting projects. Unfortunately, the fund is still under-resourced. There are a lot of projects still coming in, and it is clear that funding from developed countries is not commensurate with the needs of the most vulnerable. Countries must commit to adequate capitalization and enhanced support to alleviate the plight of those losing the most to a crisis we have not caused.

Beddoe: Ambassador Barbosa?

Barbosa: Thank you very much. Two things. First, at board level, we need a decision that enables operation of the fund without any delay. That is really key for us. At the moment, it is already delayed. The loss and damage fund should work much like the Adaptation Fund, with simplified procedures and rapid disbursement. But some colleagues are now considering long-term modalities or models. That is not applicable for us. This fund was established to respond rapidly to loss and damage from the impacts of climate change faced by developing countries, especially LDCs and small island developing states. So the board members need to consider the urgency: how to respond quickly and address needs quickly.

The fund was established to respond quickly. We need to stress rapid response rather than only rapid disbursement. That is key. We are waiting for a clear decision from the board to respond quickly to disasters faced by developing countries. One is happening right now in Nepal. As LDCs, and not only LDCs but developing countries, we are urging colleagues to provide financial resources quickly from the loss and damage fund, whether under the BIM or outside it, from the finance currently available. That will be key to responding quickly.

Second, it will also depend on countries themselves: how well they can put together funding requests that are urgent, and submit them for approval by the board or consideration by the secretariat, so the fund can disburse or provide a quick response. That is very key.

Additionally, if those two points do not work well, we need additional guidance from the COP and the CMA to the countries and to the board, so that there is a quick response to disasters and loss and damage faced by developing countries, especially LDCs and small island developing states. It is not easy, but we are trying our best to discuss this further with our partners so the fund delivers quickly and responds to the real loss and damage our communities are facing.

Beddoe: Thank you very much, Ambassador. We have a question for both you and Anne. Anne, perhaps you can take this first. As several SIDS and LDCs pursue Article 6 carbon markets to obtain mitigation finance, what role should market-based instruments play in climate finance mobilization alongside concessional finance and grants?

Rasmussen: Thanks, Bianca. For SIDS, any finance flowing from these markets must be grounded in the principles of environmental integrity, transparency and accountability, and must provide more than merely offsets for GHG emissions.

Market mechanisms could play a role in contributing to adaptation finance through the application of a share of proceeds to all transactions. This could be an important source of additional finance for SIDS and LDCs. As I mentioned earlier, the key is that the market mechanisms maintain environmental integrity, and that voluntary arrangements closely mirror the arrangements for the Article 6.4 mechanism under the Paris Agreement. That way, we have the opportunity to mobilize as many resources as possible without undermining our efforts to limit carbon emissions. Thanks.

Beddoe: Thank you so much, Anne. Ambassador Barbosa?

Barbosa: Article 6 implementation is key for us to enable carbon trading among parties. That is quite key. But, as Anne said, environmental integrity is also key for us.

For LDCs, we need consideration of our national circumstances and of local communities, who have a right to food security. I will give you one example. If forests around local communities are sold into a carbon market mechanism, it becomes very difficult for those communities to grow their crops in that area. Access to their own land is critical for local communities' food security, because for LDCs, food security depends heavily on the agriculture sector. So we need that consideration, and respect for local communities' right to food security. That is the key.

Additionally, the share of proceeds is key to providing financial resources for the Adaptation Fund under the Paris Agreement. And of course, the key thing will also be considering poverty eradication. That is very key for LDCs. There are adaptation and mitigation co-benefits, but we need to implement the rules and procedures adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Some LDCs are not ready to access these markets, because they need to establish their own national accountability, transparency, and national laws and regulations. We do not want a very strong push from other sides for LDCs to come up with economic engagement in this area. So social safeguards are also quite critical for us when we apply Articles 6.2 and 6.4. Thank you.

Beddoe: Thank you for that insight, Ambassador. I want to thank everyone for your time. We will close with this final question. This is UN Secretary-General Guterres' last UNGA. What do you think, Anne and Ambassador, has been his climate legacy, and are you concerned that climate change may slip down the agenda of his successor? Ambassador Barbosa?

Barbosa: Thank you very much for that question. I believe Secretary-General António Guterres is a champion of climate action. That is key for us. He has always advocated for vulnerable countries like LDCs and small island developing states. His work and his legacy must continue, not only in delivering statements, but in implementation. As I said in my statement today, implementation is key for us: moving from commitment to delivery and implementation. This is key for us, and the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has already been engaged on it. Thank you.

Beddoe: Thank you, Ambassador. Anne? Final word.

Rasmussen: Thanks, Bianca. The legacy of Guterres as UNSG was elevating climate change to the global stage. Geopolitics continues to push climate action and climate resilience lower down the agenda. But the UNSG has really used his convening power to build momentum every year here at UNGA, and also at the COPs, where he convenes meetings at the highest level. Last year, he convened a meeting here on NDCs, which were due. We know about the insufficiency of some of these NDCs, especially from major emitters. But with the convening power of the UNSG, we were able to keep up the momentum and keep our issues on the radar. So whoever succeeds him should maintain the urgency of the present moment, including continuing the conversation and putting climate issues at the forefront.

And of course, it is up to member states to make sure this conversation continues to be part of the discussion. Under the UNSG, there were commitments and implementation programmes such as Early Warnings for All, and also the Climate Promise to drive NDC implementation.

These are some of the legacies he leaves behind, especially elevating climate issues every year, not only at UNGA but also through his high-level climate action agenda. In his final year here, there are a lot of solution dialogues across UNGA on just transition, on finance and on adaptation finance. We are grateful that the UNSG continues to elevate climate conversations to the highest level. Whoever his successor will be, we wish them all the best, and we hope that legacy continues. But it is up to member states to make sure the momentum is kept up. Thank you.

Beddoe: Thank you so much, and thank you, Anne. I know you jumped in unexpectedly. The Ambassador really wanted to be here, but she was unexpectedly detained.

Ambassador Barbosa, thank you so much for taking the time in your very hectic schedule. And to all the media: I know you have a lot to cover today, and we really appreciate your coverage and your amplification of SIDS and LDC issues. Please do keep in touch. I am at media@aosis.org. I look forward to hearing from you all. Thank you very much again for your attention and your participation. We wish you all a very good day.

Rasmussen: Thank you.

Barbosa: Thank you very much, and all the best.

Rasmussen: See you, Ambassador Adao.

Barbosa: See you later. Bye-bye.

Rasmussen: Bye-bye.