Bernardine B. de Belen
At the top of my Did Not Finish pile, which pertains to books you put down before finishing, is The Ministry for the Future by Kim Stanley Robinson. It is a climate fiction novel putting us in the extremely futuristic world and timeline of 2025. In this book, the United Nations have finally decided to establish a new arm called the Ministry for the Future under the Paris Agreement that basically upholds the rights of ‘Future People’ in relation to climate change.
What I will not forget, despite not finishing it, is its opening scene. In 2025 in India, they have finally transitioned out of the common fossil fuels we use. Despite the transition to renewable energy though, it’s hot, so hot that people have resorted to sleeping in their roof decks naked, so hot that people barely went out.
In the midst of this heat, a sudden blackout. People started to evacuate to houses with generators that could handle air conditioning. People started to steal other peoples’ generators and air conditioners. Some people had to resort to running to a lake which has turned just as hot. Bodies floated from the water. Corpses were covered in blankets in the makeshift evacuation centers. In this scene, the rescue took too long. People mainly just helped each other in any way they could, and those who survived tirelessly demanded ways to lower the Earth’s temperature. The Ministry for the Future tries but fails, because how does one ministry fight an entire system, especially when they do not have enough resources either?
When I attended SB60, my first SBs, I could not help but think of this book–how serious the climate crisis is, how important that the people outside of Bonn are more empowered to commit to climate action, and how imperative the decisions are made in halls where the most affected cannot even attend.
This is the goal of ACE (Action for Climate Empowerment), to stimulate climate action on the ground in smaller and more particular communities. It was adopted by parties to refer to efforts in relation to Article 6 of the UNFCCC and Article 12 of the Paris Agreement, both emphasizing the need for climate change education, training, and public participation. In relation to this, ACE has six pillars, namely, 1) education, 2) training, 3) public awareness, 4) public access to information, 5) public participation, and 6) international cooperation. With the that education and the participation of people are vital to reimagine the current world and climate that we have, I followed the events of ACE throughout the June Climate Meetings.
There were two main ACE events that were expected to contribute to ACE’s future moving forward, the ACE dialogue focusing on tools and support, and negotiations regarding the text of the ACE annual summary of 2023.
For the ACE dialogue at SB60 focusing on tools and support, it comes from ACE’s four priority areas: 1) policy coherence, 2) coordinated action, 3) tools and support, and 4) monitoring, evaluation and reporting. During one of the two sessions they had, there was a panel of funders that explained how they evaluate and screen project proposals that are focused on ACE, giving advice on what makes a good proposal. In the other session, the attendees were divided into breakout groups where questions in relation to ACE’s tools and support were asked.
One of the concerns brought up were the lack of resources, specifically extra manpower for ACE focal points. Other countries do not even have an ACE focal point at all. There was also a discussion on making the story of the climate crisis more human and relatable, taking into account the community’s culture and context. One of the most glaring demands though was the need for funding. One group shared that financial resources are at the center of checking other things in the list.
Meanwhile, in the ACE negotiations done in SB60, parties discussed the text for ACE’s annual summary report for 2023. At COP28, when they were supposed to agree on the text, they could not come with a consensus running into Rule 16. This basically says that if the agenda item was not completed within the given session, it has to be carried over to the next ordinary session–hence, from COP28 to SB60.
However, at SB60, the parties were only given two hours in total to discuss the text for the summary, one of the sessions even being cut short because there was a lack of draft text proposals. After the second session, the parties still could not agree. In particular, developed countries did not want to include language that would have allowed for more opportunities to discuss finance in ACE dialogues. This disagreement means that they will have to discuss the annual summary report for 2023 at COP29 in Baku, during the last quarter of 2024. There is also frustration in the fact that Baku has been labeled as a “finance COP” and ACE has hoped to secure some funds here. But without a summary for 2023, how are they supposed to begin discussing financial concerns?
In a press conference after the unproductive negotiations, both parties and non-party stakeholders expressed their disappointment. Fatou Ndeye Gaye, a party member of The Gambia, stated, “If those things are not implemented, then what do we tell our people on the ground who are waiting for us each time we travel and then come back with nothing?”
Kassim Hussein, a part of Ghana’s party also said that he was taken aback when they could not settle with a text given that all parties were working amicably during SB56 which was how they came up with a four-year action plan for ACE. But at this point, with a midterm review looming in 2026, he asks, how is ACE supposed to be implemented with little to no funding?
Youth non-party stakeholders also expressed concern as the parties are not putting enough emphasis on empowerment for climate action. As Fatou Ndeye Gaye asked, how are people supposed to push for climate action when they are not empowered and aware of the crisis? They say that writing project proposals and enacting them are intrinsically linked to enabling finance.
At the end of the day, of COP, of SBs, the execution of a good plan will always come down to funding. In the Ministry for the Future, they are expected to change the world, to protect the future generations, through the same systems and with a limited budget. This is similar to what is happening to ACE. Frankly, in a world that runs on money, how do you empower communities to act without funding them? How can developed countries express their remorse concretely for what developing countries are experiencing without providing financially?
In the Philippines we have suffered enough, and yet we will continue to suffer. I only hope that climate action on the ground can be taken more seriously and with ferocity, with community concerns brought to the international arena. After all, it is the smallest, most vulnerable communities that experience climate change impacts the most.
Bernardine B. de Belen is a research assistant and program coordinator at the Klima Center of the Manila Observatory. At the UNFCCC processes, she follows negotiations and dialogues on Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) and youth-focused events.
This is part of Klima Center’s SB 60 thought-leadership series on the climate change workstreams of Global Stocktake, Mitigation, Loss and Damage, Just Transition, and Action for Climate Empowerment.