The Plurals spoke exclusively to Amnesty International climate advisor Rosemary Ann Harrison on the sidelines of SB64, the UN-organised global climate meeting popularly labelled mid-COP (Conference of Parties). The interview was midway into the conference.
The Plurals (TP): The SB64 is almost halfway through. How you see it shaping up vis-à-vis your expectation and Amnesty International’s position on major global climate issues?
Rosemary Ann Harrison (RAH): I think it was a quiet last week. There were a lot of dialogues that obviously don’t result in decisions. Some important topics were discussed, but perhaps not so much on the crucial negotiations sectors. We’re very keen to see progress on the Just Transition mechanism. The process for its operationalisation is supposed to be adopted at COP31. We’re worried that there’s not been enough progress made on that. Too much focus on the terms of reference, but getting down to the substance has not happened. So, we’re really, really keen to see parties step up the pace and, actually, get to a draft text by the end of the week. (A draft text on the Just Transition mechanism is to be prepared following a series of consultations and is expected to be carried forward to COP31, once agreed upon by the countries, though there are still conflicting views as the meeting enters into its final day.)
TP: Let me ask you about Amnesty’s stand on the fossil fuel cut roadmap entering formal UN negotiations at COP31 in Antalya, Turkey. It’s a demand echoing in several meetings at Bonn especially after 57 countries participated in the Santa Marta fossil fuel summit last April, while many countries are opposing it…
RAH: I think the topic clearly needs to be put on the negotiation table at COP31. We’ve seen in previous years that there was a complete blockage to even reference fossil fuels. The only time it’s (the discussion) really happened, was in the COP28, (with the) global stocktake decision, and since then, it was put on the backburner. There has been a lot of pushbacks from certain countries and from big fossil fuel producers not to not address that within the UNFCCC process. But at the same time, we have a few external processes happening in its favour, there are countries that are actually wanting to take steps together about transitioning away from fossil fuels.
TP: (interrupting) You are referring to the Santa Marta fossil fuel treaty meeting?
RAH: Yes, and also to the Presidency Roadmap initiative, which is built on the Santa Marta conference. We are seeing these issues at least being discussed now on the sidelines. Parties really need to give some kind of consideration to the issue on how they can be engaged more concretely in the process, and one option might be through the second global stocktake in 2027. The discussion on the modalities can start soon, and may be tabled during COP32 negotiations.
TP: Wars are raging across the world and there have been documents establishing the impact of wars on climate change, both from Ukraine and Gaza. What is Amnesty’s position on this?
RAH: One of the real problems is the fact that military-linked carbon emissions, whether during peace time or war, get excluded from the accounting that countries have to do under the UNFCCC, and that’s clearly a big gap. There may not be robust scientific data available on the agenda, but, you know, estimates by experts say that the military process-linked emissions may be as high as 5.5% of global emissions, and that’s more than the emission of some of the major countries.
TP: What is the way out?
RAH: The first call may be to introduce a norm that countries should report on their military emissions as part of their submissions on total emissions. And obviously, subsequently, the countries should also take steps to minimise emissions from the military sector just as they do in other sectors. We can’t, and should not, exclude the whole sector from the climatic emissions ambit, not to mention the overall environmental damage linked to wars and conflicts as well as the embedded emissions.