Ban Ki-moon calls for a 'firm and clear' loss and damage road map

Former United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls the 2009 U.N. Climate Change Conference, or COP, in Copenhagen “one of the most embarrassing and humiliating experiences” of his five-decade diplomatic career. Despite his personal appeal, member states failed to emerge from those negotiations with a unanimous resolution. The Copenhagen COP has become known for the commitment from higher-income nations to make $100 billion in climate financing available to vulnerable countries annually from 2020. They have yet to reach that target. Since stepping down as secretary-general at the end of 2016, Ban has focused on climate advocacy, including pushing higher-income nations to finally deliver on their commitments. He does so in his many roles, including as one of the founders of the Vienna-based Ban Ki-moon Centre for Global Citizens, alongside former Austrian President Heinz Fischer, as well as chairing the supervisory board of the Global Center on Adaptation in Rotterdam, Netherlands. Ban sees some momentum coming out of last November’s COP 27 in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, which resulted in a new commitment to provide funding for vulnerable countries to address losses and damages from the impacts of climate change. But with an eye toward his earlier experience in Copenhagen, Ban’s looking for a “firm and clear road map for how to support this loss and damage” to emerge from the next COP, slated for the end of this year in Dubai. Ban was in Berlin for meetings this week with Germany’s Food and Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir and Jennifer Morgan, the federal foreign office’s state secretary and special envoy for international climate action. He spoke to Devex following those discussions. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What were you advocating for here in Berlin? Germany is one of the leading countries among U.N. member states, with a high level of [official development assistance]. The main reason I met State Secretary Morgan and, for the first time, the Food and Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir … we discussed how the foreign ministry and agriculture ministry can help smallholder farmers. Agriculture, since the beginning of human history, has been the basic industry. Without agriculture, human beings cannot live. But when it comes to political consideration, [there is] not much consideration on agriculture. That’s why I really wanted to meet with them and ask the German government for more leadership on this, and particularly for smallholder farmers. There are more than 500 million smallholder farmers, particularly in sub-Saharan African countries. We really need to support them. I strongly encouraged both the German leaders to work more closely with some agriculture-related international organizations like CGIAR. Then I suggested, we can render our voices and establish some event on the margins of the Petersberg Dialogue, or some other organ. If the German government would do that, we can mobilize and raise the voices of Germany as well as [the] Ban Ki-moon Centre. That was the main reason. I received very positive responses from both ministers. Would the event focus on smallholder farmers? On smallholder farmers, but of course, the final destination target is climate. Can you talk about the legacy of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009? Countries like [the] United States, Japan, the European Union, they announced very proudly that they would provide $100 billion [from] 2020. Up to now, they should have mobilized $400 billion. Then nothing happened. Well, nothing may not be correct, but a little more than $80 billion was mobilized. $83.3 billion to be exact. It should have been $400 billion now, up to the end of this year. I’ve been really passionately and angrily asking member states: Do you keep your promise? What is preventing them from meeting their commitments? There are many reasons not to do it. First of all, lack of political will. [U.S.] President [Donald] Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Change Agreement was first of all, politically, very irresponsible. Scientifically, dead wrong. And morally, irresponsible for humanity, for the world. Is that what the U.S. president, the most important global leader, should have done? This is a very cold shower on even very reluctantly moving member states. So when the U.S. was not doing it, then people would not do it. [Since U.S. President Joe Biden rejoined the Paris Agreement], there are many reasons not to do it, particularly these days, like [the] illegal Russian aggression of Ukraine, which has diverted all the resources available from major countries, like the United States, the European Union. Then even Korea, Japan, with high inflation rates. This really is now giving a cold shower again to the political leaders, who would otherwise try to do something. While I appreciate these kinds of difficulties, there should be somebody who should really lead this campaign. In that regard, I highly commend [German] Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz’s G7 climate club, what he suggested. I think the G7, the most powerful, richest, and best-resourced countries, should lead this campaign. So the G7 climate club, suggested by Chancellor Scholz is highly appreciated. I hope he leads this G7 club. So it's not that there is no money. There are resources available, but that depends on where to use this money first. So all this money is now diverted to war. Just think about the people in sub-Saharan countries, small island developing countries, whose future is endangered. Is momentum increasing after the agreements reached in Sharm el-Sheikh? In Sharm el-Sheikh, “loss and damage” was agreed upon. It was after at least 30 years of not much discussion. When COP began almost 30 years ago, this loss and damage issue came. Not many people paid attention. They just paid attention [to] mitigation, without having the future vision like how to adapt. Wisely, effectively, efficiently investing in adaptation. I’ve been speaking out immediately after Sharm el-Sheikh that in COP 28 in Dubai, there should be a firm and clear road map on how to support this loss and damage. There should be a harmonization of current level of loss and damage and future loss and damage. If you don't have a harmonization, this loss and damage will always be there. Unless you invest wisely, it will happen again. Even if you make up for this one, it will continue to happen. So there should be a harmonization between and among the loss and damage which happened and which will happen if you don't invest. There must be some added level of ambition. Germany, in particular, touts the private sector’s role in addressing climate change. What role should the private sector play? The private sector has a very important role. Without the private sector joining actively in climate action, nothing will happen. Therefore, I’ve been speaking out that the global partnership among three — government, business, and civil society — is the key point. We cannot monopolize the private sector. Let them do their own business. When they carry on their business, keep in mind the Paris Climate Agreement. Keep all the policies climate-friendly, make all the actions transparent, corruption-free, with respect for all human rights. And use all the resources and make it publicly known. This is accountability. Those are some important messages that I have been speaking out to all global leaders.