What If Companies, NGOs Don't Go To COP30 in Belém?
In short, companies and non-profits remain undecided whether to make the trek to the Amazonian city of Belém for the two weeks of talks that begin Nov. 10. Because of both logistics and the changing dynamics of global climate leadership, many are considering limiting their journeys to side events in Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo.
In a call with members of the press last week, André Corrêa do Lago, who will serve as COP30 president, celebrated the related climate events happening all over Brazil, but insisted that companies and NGOs should still show up in Belém. 'We are delighted that they come to other events, before the COP, in Rio or São Paulo, but Belém is the place,' he said. 'We need the business sector to be present in Belém.'
At the center of the planned private sector involvement in Belém is the so-called 'action agenda,' an officially sanctioned set of priorities that take place apart from the negotiations between countries. The announced COP schedule includes specific days focused on topics including energy, transport, trade, finance, and carbon markets that companies may want to join.
Themed days have become a mainstay of U.N. climate conferences, but this year's Brazilian organizers insist that the approach this time will be different. In past COPs, organizers emphasized the announcement of new private sector commitments. This time around, organizers insist that themed meetings will drill down into 'implementation' rather than tout new high-level pledges.
Officials will try to build on the programs and commitments announced at previous U.N. climate conferences—assessing their progress and identifying opportunities for improvement. This includes everything from promises to limit methane emissions to commitments to halt deforestation. They hope that businesses will share at COP concrete plans for how to meet those past pledges at a time when many businesses are backtracking on their ambition. COP officials are also planning to create what they are calling a "granary of solutions' that will give attendees—particularly businesses—a comprehensive look at the many solutions that are working, thereby encouraging others to take similar actions.
Many companies and non-profits are still deciding whether they want to take part in Belém. In the public narrative, steep prices and limited room availability have received the brunt of the blame for the reticence of some climate leaders to show up in Belém. There is no doubt that this is a big issue for some civil society groups. Email list serves and WhatsApp groups are buzzing as advocates look around for affordable accommodation. That said, the news reports touting outlandish nightly rates running into the tens of thousands of dollars are largely outdated; new relatively affordable housing stock has become available on the conference's official booking site (though many of these accommodations don't have the amenities to which western business travelers are accustomed).
But while the accommodation options are an easy excuse, they aren't the primary thing holding some climate folks back. Many companies and big environmental non-profits that plan to show up in Rio or São Paulo have also booked rooms in Belém as they decide whether it's worth the extra stop. In some ways, the thought process is like one you might engage in before any other professional or even social gathering. Private sector leaders are asking, 'who else will be there?' And 'what will we actually get done?'
Nothing will get done if firms don't show up. In recent years, climate observers have questioned whether the COP process is really worth all of the effort it takes—and whether it's the best way for the private sector to spend its time. But the truth is it will only ever be worth its time if advocates seize on it.
That's a potential loss for the U.S. firms that choose to sit it out. One set of companies expected to show up in force are firms located in India and China. That's a change from recent years when large western companies have shown in force and Asian firms have remained more muted. It's yet another indication of the shift of gravity away from the U.S. in global efforts to tackle climate change.
To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Sycophant Says Boss Should Get Another Nobel Prize
Forget Donald Trump becoming a Peace Prize laureate. White House aide Peter Navarro believes the president should be given a Nobel economics award for 'teaching the world' about trade. As the deadline looms for countries to agree to trade deals with the U.S. or face tariffs of up to 50 percent, the MAGA acolyte and former prison inmate declared that the president should be rewarded for shaking up the global trade system. 'You know, a lot of people talk about Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm thinking that since he's basically taught the world trade economics, he might be up for the Nobel in economics,' Navarro told Fox Business. 'This is a fundamental restructuring of the international trade environment in a way where the biggest market in the world has said you're not going to cheat us anymore.' Navarro is a trade advisor to the president, who was previously sentenced to four months in prison for refusing to comply with a subpoena from the House Select Committee that investigated the January 6 attack on the U.S Capitol. His comments came a day after Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, who Trump has repeatedly threatened to sack, warned that the administration's tariffs are already driving up prices. The president insists that his policies have curbed inflation, and he has repeatedly urged the Fed Chair to lower interest rates. However, in a public rebuke, Powell told reporters: 'Increased tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories of goods. 'Near-term measures of inflation expectations have moved up on balance over the course of this year on news about tariffs.' The slapdown, coupled with the Fed keeping interest rates steady for now, infuriated the president, who embarked on another social media posting spree attacking Powell on Thursday morning. 'He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair,' Trump lamented. As the latest trade deadline looms on August 1, Trump has continued to troll America's trading partners as he seeks to strong-arm nations into making trade deals. Among them was Canada, after Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Wednesday that the nation would recognize Palestine as a state if the Palestinian Authority agreed to a series of reforms. 'Wow! Canada has just announced that it is backing statehood for Palestine. That will make it very hard for us to make a Trade Deal with them,' Trump wrote just after midnight Thursday on Truth Social. Earlier, he said he would put a 25 percent tariff on India's goods as he berated the country over trade barriers and its purchases of energy and military equipment from Russia. Also on Wednesday, Trump announced that goods in Brazil would face a 50 percent tariff. This coincided with the Treasury Department sanctioning the Brazilian judge overseeing the case of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro for allegedly plotting a coup.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tightness in Coffee Supplies Underpins Prices
September arabica coffee (KCU25) today is up +14.00 (+4.53%), and September ICE robusta coffee (RMU25) is up +188 (+5.28%). Coffee prices today are sharply higher, with arabica surging to a 7-week high and robusta soaring to a 4-week high. Signs of tighter coffee supplies are supporting prices after Brazil's Trade Ministry last Wednesday reported that Brazil's July unroasted coffee exports fell -20.4% y/y to 161,000 MT. More News from Barchart What Game Is Being Played in Grains Early Monday Morning? Traders Sold the Rumor. Is It Time to Buy the Facts with Soybean Meal Here? Cocoa Prices Soar on Excessive Dryness in West Africa Get exclusive insights with the FREE Barchart Brief newsletter. Subscribe now for quick, incisive midday market analysis you won't find anywhere else. A decline in ICE coffee inventories is also supporting arabica prices, as ICE-monitored arabica inventories fell to a 14.5-month low of 738,095 bags last Friday. Also, ICE robusta coffee inventories fell to a 2-week low today of 6,981 lots after climbing to a 1-year high of 7,029 lots on July 28. The coffee market is awaiting clarity on US tariff policies, as President Trump has yet to exempt coffee from his 50% tariff on Brazilian exports. The tariff could hurt sales of Brazilian coffee to the US and boost Brazil's coffee inventories. Above-average rainfall in Brazil eases dryness concerns and is a negative factor for coffee prices. Somar Meteorologia reported today that Brazil's largest arabica coffee-growing area, Minas Gerais, received 4.8 mm of rain during the week ended August 9, or 109% of the historical average. The ongoing Brazil coffee harvest is bearish for coffee prices. Safras & Mercado reported last Friday that Brazil's overall 2025/26 coffee harvest was 94% complete as of August 6, ahead of the comparable level of 92% last year. The breakdown showed that 99% of the robusta harvest and 91% of the arabica harvest were complete as of August 6. In related news, Brazil's Cooxupe coffee co-op announced last Tuesday that the harvest among its members was 74% complete as of August 1. Cooxupe is Brazil's largest coffee cooperative and Brazil's largest exporter group. In a bearish factor, the International Coffee Organization (ICO) reported last Wednesday that global June coffee exports rose +7.3% y/y to 11.69 million bags. However, cumulative Oct-Jun coffee exports were down -0.2% y/y at 104.14 million bags. Coffee prices have retreated over the past three months on the outlook for abundant coffee supplies. Last month, arabica coffee tumbled to an 8-month low and robusta sank to a 1.25-year nearest-futures low. On June 25, the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) forecasted that Brazil's 2025/26 coffee production will increase by +0.5% y/y to 65 million bags and that Vietnam's 2025/26 coffee output will rise by 6.9% y/y to a 4-year high of 31 million bags. Brazil is the world's largest producer of arabica coffee, and Vietnam is the world's largest producer of robusta coffee. Smaller coffee exports from Brazil are positive for prices after Cecafe reported on July 16 that Brazil's total Jun green coffee exports fell -31% y/y to 2.3 million bags, with arabica exports down -27% y/y to 1.8 million bags and robusta exports down -42% y/y to 476,334 bags. Due to drought, Vietnam's coffee production in the 2023/24 crop year decreased by -20% y/y to 1.472 MMT, the smallest crop in four years. Also, Vietnam's General Statistics Office reported that 2024 Vietnam coffee exports fell by -17.1% y/y to 1.35 MMT. Additionally, the Vietnam Coffee and Cocoa Association reduced its 2024/25 Vietnam coffee production estimate to 26.5 million bags on March 12, down from a December estimate of 28 million bags. By contrast, the Vietnam National Statistics Office reported Tuesday that Vietnam's Jan-Jul 2025 coffee exports were up +6.9% y/y to 1.05 MMT. The USDA's biannual report, released on June 25, was bearish for coffee prices. The USDA's Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) projected that world coffee production in 2025/26 will increase by +2.5% y/y to a record 178.68 million bags, with a -1.7% decrease in arabica production to 97.022 million bags and a +7.9% increase in robusta production to 81.658 million bags. The USDA's FAS forecasts that 2025/26 ending stocks will climb by +4.9% to 22.819 million bags from 21.752 million bags in 2024/25. For the 2025/26 marketing year, Volcafe projects a global 2025/26 arabica coffee deficit of -8.5 million bags, wider than the -5.5 million bag deficit for 2024/25 and the fifth consecutive year of deficits. On the date of publication, Rich Asplund did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
5 hours ago
- Forbes
Governance And Fairness Questions Loom Large In U.N. Tax Talks
Right now, representatives from multiple governments are sitting at the U.N.'s New York headquarters negotiating three workstreams for the U.N.'s framework convention on international tax cooperation. The convention's intergovernmental negotiating committee has a lot of work to do in the coming months, and it must consider many perspectives. Earlier this summer, the U.N. asked stakeholders in a series of draft issues notes to offer feedback on the scope and direction of the committee's workstreams, and it received nearly 150 submissions across the three workstreams — the first addresses the framework convention, the second addresses taxation of services, and the third addresses tax dispute prevention and resolution. On Workstream I, nearly 60 stakeholders responded. A review of that feedback reveals that at least two major issues loom large: Stakeholders are generally concerned about the convention's organization and governance, and they are divided over the concept of tax fairness and how it should apply to the convention. Issues in Workstream I The first workstream is crucial because it's how U.N. member states will draft the text of the U.N. Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation and its accompanying commitments. According to a draft issues note, the intergovernmental negotiating committee is considering three different commitments for this workstream. The first would address the effective prevention and resolution of tax disputes. The intergovernmental negotiating committee believes this is a promising topic because of the difficulties that some developing countries face in resolving cross-border disputes. They lack large treaty networks to rely on but receive considerable cross-border trade and investments. Unsurprisingly, the committee stated in a draft note that it sees usefulness in alternative dispute resolution and prevention mechanisms, but only if they 'are fair, independent, accessible, and effective in resolving disputes in a timely manner for both taxpayers and the tax authorities involved.' This, of course, raises the question: What is fair, independent, accessible, and effective? The second commitment would address the fair allocation of taxing rights, which includes the equitable taxation of multinational enterprises. The committee landed on this topic based on various feedback from member states. There's a cohort of countries that believe the convention should ensure that jurisdictions have taxing rights over the business activities that take place within their borders, meaning that jurisdictions where users are located would have taxing rights. Other countries believe taxing rights should be based on economic substance and value creation, and some countries are unsure if third countries should receive these taxing rights. The committee wants member states to arrive at a common approach 'that recognizes that every jurisdiction where business activity takes place should share in taxing rights over the income generated.' The third commitment is to sustainable development. On this issue, the workstream document says the member states will pursue international tax cooperation that also advances economic, social, and environmental development. Stakeholder Responses A lightning rod issue mentioned by several stakeholders is 'fairness.' Several perspectives on this have come to light. The African Union stated in its submission that countries should discuss the fair allocation of taxing rights on a protocol-by-protocol basis or, in the context of various initiatives and instruments, 'each taking up its meaning from the context of its peculiarity.' Meanwhile, the South Centre cautioned against determining, in detail, when and where economic activity takes place. 'This is an unnecessary detail which can become a very complex exercise, may not have universal applicability to all business activities, can become quickly outdated in the face of evolving business models and will end up wasting precious negotiating time,' the organization said. The Republic of Korea echoed a similar point, writing that 'while we appreciate the emphasis on creating 'future-proof' rules, we caution against attempting to prescribe detailed commitments for business models that may not yet exist. The rapid pace of technological innovation and evolving global structures makes accurate forecasting difficult.' The South Centre suggested that the committee remove language about determining where business activity takes place from the commitment and address the matter in specific protocols instead. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) also advised member states to refrain from 'a broad, undefined debate on 'fairness'' because of its inherent subjectivity. And the Republic of Korea encouraged the committee to avoid negative framing, writing that while some cast the international tax framework as 'unfair,' that framework — which countries broadly rely on — is the product of many multilateral negotiations over the years. 'We are concerned that overly negative framing may undermine the cooperative spirit needed to reform the system,' the Republic of Korea said. 'A balanced tone — acknowledging both the strengths and limitations of the current system — would support broader engagement.' For Indonesia, fairness looks like a strong reaffirmation of source taxation. It told the committee that the second commitment 'should include that taxing rights must be allocated based on where real economic contribution occurs. This includes not only supply-side operations but also demand-side factors such as consumption, and user base. This is critical to ensure that such countries do not lose taxing rights over income derived from digital markets and other activities where significant economic value is created.' On the other hand, the Republic of Korea said that more conceptual clarity is needed for the concept of value creation. That's because there is no universal understanding of value creation or economic substance, and the Republic of Korea is concerned that jurisdictions could arrive at conflicting interpretations. 'We recommend that the text recognize this ambiguity and caution against prematurely operationalizing 'value creation' as a normative principle without further technical work and consensus-building,' its submission said. Prioritizing Governance Another highly mentioned topic is that of governance. Paragraph 13 of the convention's terms of reference addresses governance-related issues: 'The framework convention should also include, inter alia, the following additional substantive and procedural elements: definitions; relationship with other agreements, instruments and domestic law; review and verification; exchange of information (for implementation of the framework convention); data collection and analysis; financial resources; conference of the parties; secretariat; subsidiary bodies; dispute settlement mechanisms; and procedures for amendments to the framework convention and adoption of protocols; and final provisions.' Several stakeholders urged the committee to devote more time and resources in Workstream I to the convention's governance, because that will lay the groundwork for the convention's success. For example, how will the convention's Conference of the Parties be structured, and what tasks will they own? Also, how will the convention interface with existing international tax bodies and initiatives? How will the convention be amended? These are concerns voiced by several stakeholders, including Germany and the South Centre. A submission from professors Peter Hongler and Irma Mosquera argued that Workstream I should be devoted to building a cooperation framework rather than focusing on commitments. They raised an interesting question: Does the framework convention need commitments at all? The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has successfully incorporated commitments, but the professors are doubtful that the same construct is useful for tax cooperation. 'Commitments must be concrete; otherwise, they are merely empty words,' their submission says. 'In the UNFCCC context, precise commitments were feasible. For example, states can be concretely obliged to maintain an inventory of anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] emissions or to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions by a certain percentage. In the tax field, however, this seems impossible or at least not meaningful.' They go on to provide some examples: On the issue of tax dispute prevention and resolution, they argue that a tangible solution, like obligating countries to incorporate arbitration clauses into their tax treaties, would face opposition. They also voice doubt about the commitment toward a fair allocation of taxing rights, given the long time in which governments have debated this issue: '[It] is ultimately impossible, as there is no objectively 'fair' allocation. Also fairness has different meanings, which also constitutes an obstacle to achieve these commitments. . . . In our view, allocation rules can only approximate fairness from different perspectives and even more important, fairness is mainly achieved through fair terms of cooperation. Therefore, the focus should be on fair terms of cooperation.' On the other hand, the African Union has no such qualms about the convention's commitments and believes there's room to add more. Another governance-related issue is whether the convention should make decisions by majority or consensus. U.N. countries agreed in February to approve decisions on a simple majority basis, meaning that a two-thirds majority is required to approve protocols to the convention. In its feedback, KPMG pointed out that even though simple majority voting is the official stance, the intergovernmental negotiating committee also agreed that it would 'exhaust every effort in good faith to reach consensus on all matters of substance while taking into account the available time frame for negotiations.' KPMG says that the consensus standard should be the primary approach. 'While there will be some areas where international divergence may be preferable, global cooperation is likely to be achieved only where there is consensus,' the firm said. 'Use of the 'majoritarian back-up' is likely to lead to bifurcation of acquiescing and dissenting countries which in most cases will be sub-optimal.' KPMG believes the committee should create working advisory groups to attain consensus and should incorporate business interests into those groups. 'Ultimately it is businesses that will be impacted by most measures and thus it is critical that potential impacts and possible unintended consequences be fully explored,' the firm said. The ICC issued similar advice, urging the committee to establish a technical business advisory council. Ideally, it would host 20 business representatives, split equally among the U.N.'s five different regional groupings. In the interest of transparency, the outcomes of these advisory council consultations would be publicly released on the U.N.'s website, the ICC said. This feedback from KPMG and the ICC highlights a glaring issue: They were the only two business representatives to respond to Workstream I. This raises questions about why there has been a lack of business engagement and what can be done to bring more business taxpayers — who will be affected by the outcomes of the convention — into the discussion. What Is Cooperation? At the end of the day, international cooperation is perhaps the most important issue here. Determining the contours of that cooperation — including who can be in the deliberation rooms and when — is still being sorted out. Some stakeholders believe they should have more access to the discussions. From the outset, the U.N. secretariat has been clear that member states will lead the decision-making process. That said, the U.N. Economic and Social Council is free to grant consultative status to nongovernmental organizations through article 71 of the U.N. Charter. In this sense, ECOSOC is unique — it is the only main U.N. group that maintains a formal process for NGO participation, according to the council. And it grants that status to many organizations: Over 6,300 NGOs are in consultative status with ECOSOC. However, that does not mean they all participate in the U.N.'s work on the same basis. Generally, consultative status means that an NGO can do things like provide analyses to the U.N. and help monitor the implementation of U.N. projects. There are three kinds of consultative status: general, special, and roster. General status is typically given to large, international NGOs whose work touches on most of ECOSOC's priorities. They are allowed to send representatives to the U.N., attend and speak at ECOSOC meetings, and circulate statements. Special status is given to smaller NGOs with a special competence in topics handled by ECOSOC. They have the same sorts of privileges as general status organizations. Roster status is conferred on NGOs that have a narrower or more technical focus and periodically contribute to the work of ECOSOC or its subsidiary bodies. They are allowed to attend meetings held by ECOSOC and its subsidiaries, but they are not allowed to speak in meetings. They may circulate statements if invited to do so by the secretary-general. The convention's terms of reference address this issue in paragraph 21, which states that 'civil society and other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to contribute to the work of the intergovernmental negotiating committee in accordance with established practices.' More specifically, civil society organizations are allowed to participate as observers, according to a committee document. At the end of July, the committee, in a draft decision, approved 34 civil society and non-governmental organizations to participate in its work. It appears there's some debate over what civil society contributions should look like in the context of the tax convention. In comments, the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation told the committee that while they are committed to the process, they and other observers have not been allowed to participate in previous meetings. 'We find it deeply concerning that observers have not been invited to participate in the online meetings of the Workstreams. The fact that we have been unable to even observe the numerous meetings that Member States have already had, leaves us with a very limited understanding of the specific discussions, and significantly reduces our ability to feed into and respond to the debate,' the group said. 'We would like to stress the importance of allowing for full and effective participation of civil society and trade unions in all meetings of the committee, including the online sessions of the Workstreams.' The EU delegation to the U.N., which is also an observer organization, has voiced similar concerns because it has not been allowed to attend informal, intersessional discussion sessions for the workstreams but believes it should have received access. Sustainable Development Stakeholders have generally spent comparatively little time on the third commitment on sustainable development, which makes sense because the other two commitments raise important foundational issues that require resolution. But stakeholders who did address it, like the African Union and Germany, urged the committee to align the commitment with the outcomes from the U.N.'s recent Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development. Some, like Brazil, said this would be a good location to fit the convention's capacity-building work.
