Should new UN climate chief come from developing nation?

Some climate policy analysts say that developing nations – some of which have become role models in cutting their planet-warming emissions and adapting to climate impacts – could help fill the void in leadership left behind by Christiana Figueres' departure in July.

Ruben Sprich/Reuters/File
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon (c.) arrives between French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius (r.) and Paul Polman, Chief Executive Officer of Unilever during the session 'The New Climate and Development Imperative' during the Annual Meeting 2016 of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 21.

The hunt is on for a new United Nation's climate chief after Christiana Figueres announced last week she would step down in July – and at least one leading expert is suggesting that the UN look to Africa for a replacement.

The next executive secretary of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) should come from one of the world's poorest countries, said Saleemul Huq, director of the Dhaka-based International Centre for Climate Change and Development.

“It’s time for the least developed countries to have a chance at that particular slot,” Mr. Huq told the Thompson Reuters Foundation, adding that poorer nations have played a significant role in shaping the global strategy to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in the landmark deal forged in Paris last fall. Representatives from developing nations brought a vital perspective to the table at that conference, insisting that global leaders consider and help to address the plight of people bearing the heaviest burdens of climate change, such as those residing on island states that are becoming uninhabitable due to rising sea levels.

Huq suggested Gambia’s environment minister, Pa Ousman Jarju, or Malian scientist and former director of the African Climate Policy Center, Youba Sokono as candidates for the position. Either would be well positioned to negotiate potential challenges of coordinating action between developing and developed nations.

Climate scientists and policy makers anticipate a lot of hiccups in turning the new agreement into genuine action. The biggest concern they are grappling with is whether the "bottom-up" plan – built around each country's pledges to reduce their emissions and help poorer countries adjust to climate shifts – will add up to enough emissions cuts.

"Will countries actually race to the top, or will they race to the bottom?" asks Achala Abeysinghe, a legal adviser on climate issues for the least developed countries and a governance expert with the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development. "If they race to the bottom, we are in big trouble,” she told Reuters.

The challenge will be finding a way to push countries to stick to ambitious commitments without making penalties for failure so tough that politicians are reluctant to ratify the agreement.

"If you go too punitive, there's a risk countries will put forward the lowest common denominator because they don't want to be sanctioned," Ms. Abeysinghe added.

Upcoming transitions in key leadership further complicate the equation, following resignations from top officials including, Hela Cheikhrouhou of Green Climate Fund; Laurent Fabius, France’s former foreign minister who helped a lot with the talks in Paris; and now Ms. Figueres who will be stepping down by July.

Still, Huq and Abeysinghe are hopeful that developing nations – some of whom have become role models in cutting their planet-warming emissions and adapting to climate impacts – could help to fill the void left in leadership.

This report contains materials from Reuters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.