
BRICS' climate leadership aims hang on healing deep divides
Group took lead role in forging deal at COP16 talks
As US withdraws, group keen to push own agenda
Will face hurdles as seeks more money and greater say
LONDON, March 10 (Reuters) - Ambitions by the BRICS group to take on a greater climate leadership role, building on success last month at United Nations nature talks, depend on the countries overcoming fractious politics and entrenched disagreements over money.
As the United States has withdrawn from global efforts to combat climate change and, more generally, shifted its focus to promoting domestic interests, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa - known collectively as the BRICS - are well-placed to influence the outcomes of high-profile meetings this year.
They established their credentials by proposing a draft text that ensured agreement at the COP16 talks in February in Rome, a dozen sources told Reuters, potentially unlocking billions of dollars to help halt the destruction of ecosystems.
"Now BRICS has been able to come together in this fashion, (it) will influence our discussions in other platforms going forward," Narend Singh, deputy minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment, for South Africa said.
South Africa is boosting its profile as holder of the G20 presidency this year, while another BRICS member Brazil prepares to host COP30 climate talks in November.
"BRICS can fill a space that needs to be filled at this moment in the multilateral negotiations," Brazil's chief negotiator at COP16, Maria Angelica Ikeda, said.
Colombia's Susana Muhamad, president of the COP16 nature talks, said the BRICS countries were positioning to be "bridge builders".
"They are trying to create this balance to represent the Global South in front of the far-right governments that are emerging in the U.S., Italy and Argentina," she said.
"I understand there's a lot of countries wanting to join BRICS, because it's a way, if you have to confront something like the U.S., you are not alone."
A British official present at the talks, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said other countries needed to consider what the BRICS' more muscular approach meant for global institutions.
DISPARATE GROUP
But if BRICS' is to help fill the vacuum left by the United States under President Donald Trump, it has to address internal divisions over politics and finance.
The group's refusal to assume the official financial obligations of donor countries could prove a stumbling block, Timo Leiter, a distinguished policy fellow at the London School of Economics, said.
So far the middle-income BRICS have resisted demands from cash-strapped developed countries that they should share financial liability, complicating the quest for compromise at U.N. negotiations on climate funding and upcoming talks on development finance in Seville, Spain.
Of the $25.8 billion in biodiversity-related financing in 2022, nearly three-quarters came from five sources: European Union institutions, France, Germany, Japan and the United States, data from the OECD showed.
Diverging national interests among the BRICS, with Russia keen to maintain its sales of fossil fuels, while Brazil presses countries to decarbonise faster at COP30, may also prove sticking points.
"They (the BRICS) are drastically different in terms of development stage and emissions trajectory," said Li Shuo, director of China Climate at Asia Society.
"What ties them together is the geopolitical aspiration which leads to the question of can they agree to put forward an affirmative agenda."
A test of the group's solidarity could be at a meeting in Bonn in June where countries begin to set out their COP30 negotiating positions, analysts said.
The Financing for Development conference in Seville in June could also prove pivotal, with ministers set to discuss global sustainability goals and ongoing reform of the international financial system.
"This will be the perfect entry point for BRICS to advance their aim of changing the global order and having a stronger say in the global financial system," Leiter said. "The new U.S. position is almost a gift."
Shorter-term, the BRICS are likely to renew demands for more say in the running of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), which disburses much of the world's biodiversity finance.
GEF reform is a focus as richer countries cut development spending while demanding nature-rich countries do more to protect ecosystems such as the Amazon.
"It's a problem that instead of having more money directed to nature and to biodiversity, we have countries updating their nuclear weapons, or buying more armaments," said Brazil's Ikeda.
"At the same time, they're demanding from us, the mega-diverse countries more and more obligations."
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farcical mass arrests expose Labour's failings over Palestine
Yvette Cooper has overseen a brittle form of authoritarianism which, far from preserving the status quo, is fracturing it. The Home Secretary is now reduced to suggesting that there are things the public doesn't know about the organisation, which only she does, in defence of the draconian policy. This indicates the central argument has already been lost, and the public have not been persuaded of its merits as criticism grows. The Government miscalculated by thinking the proscription would breed establishment unity and the submission of the movement. READ MORE: Police probe 'kill 'em all' banner outside Scottish asylum seeker hotel Instead, the police are being instructed to carry out farcical mass arrests that cannot be sustained by the prison and legal system. And, we see the emergence of unexpected voices of opposition, combined with a continued expansion of the Palestine movement generally. For many in the old school of the British establishment, there is something distasteful about the ban. The sight of pensioners being rounded up and carted off in police vans for the crime of holding up a sign with the words 'Palestine' and 'action' is a little too much to plausibly defend. Everyone knows that these people cannot be described as 'terrorists' with any credibility. It is absurd, and consequently, Cooper has few allies coming to her aid. But more than distaste, the British state has generally been more strategic when it comes to utilising repression. When it comes to Palestine Action, any such nuance has been thrown out of the window. This is why figures such as Andrew Neil – it is fair to say no friend of Palestine protesters – have condemned the way the episode has been handled, saying: 'Designating them as a terrorist group was just bizarre by this government. Bizarre!' Interestingly, the people who are being arrested in Parliament Square do not look or sound like the stereotype of a direct action activist. One is a retired British army officer, Colonel Chris Romberg. The 75-year-old veteran, dressed in a suit, made the point that in his view Britain was now aiding and abetting a genocide, and this was a stand he was willing to make in defence of democratic and civil rights. Sir Jonathon Porritt, a former adviser to both king and government, was also arrested and carted away. He didn't mince his words: 'This was an absolutely clear case of a government using its powers to crush dissenting voices when it is the government itself that is most reprehensible for what continues to be an absolute horror story in the world. 'What we are seeing now in Gaza has just utterly shocked people and it's completely abhorrent that we are living through a genocide on our TV screens.' We have seen all kinds of people involved in a similar way, from members of the clergy to a former professor of poetry at the University of Oxford and an 89-year-old Jewish refugee. Former Tory MP Rory Stewart has called the proscription 'mad' and points out that the prison system cannot cope with 500 people being arrested and processed – with the threat of a 14-year jail sentence – on a single Saturday afternoon. Now, Defend Our Juries is organising for 1000 people to take part on September 6. Something has got to give. To add to Cooper's woes, it is an issue which is further haemorrhaging support for the Labour Party among its own supporters. According to a recent poll, 71% of Labour members oppose the proscription. What we have then is a lethal combination – the absence of broad support; an intellectually indefensible position; a lack of infrastructure to handle the growing number of dissenters; the continued growth of the Palestine demonstrations; a legal challenge in the works. This is just the latest in a litany of failings around the issue. Under Keir Starmer, Labour have driven the UK Government into an almighty mess. They have participated in providing the political and military cover for what Cooper herself now refers to as, without a hint of irony, the 'crimes against humanity' committed by Israel in Gaza. The foundation for the banning of Palestine Action is weak, because the foundation of the whole approach to the Middle East has been wrong on every level. They know it, and we know it. And it is when a government is in that kind of a fix that they resort to bringing out the repressive functions of the state. In doing so, they have only further weakened their position. Such measures can only hope to have a chance of success if they have overwhelming public support, and a united and cohesive apparatus to see it through. Without these, the Home Secretary cuts an isolated figure. And unfortunately for her, the issue is not going away any time soon. Instead, as the atrocities continue, opposition will grow. We are now in the closing stages of the genocide. Benjamin Netanyahu is instructing the IDF to prepare for the occupation of Gaza City. There is no further argument about what the Israeli state has planned for the people there. More death and more destruction through the methods of siege and starvation, and the obliteration of the means of life. The very last people who should be deemed as terrorists are those doing what they can to stop the horror which has been unfolding daily for nearly two years. Indeed, it is the UK Government which has failed, emphatically, in its duties to prevent genocide, as instructed by the International Court of Justice. History will not be kind to those who were complicit or active in their support for this unfathomable crime. just as it will record all of those who made a stand against it.


Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Patriotism ‘always important' to Starmer, says No 10 amid flag row
Flags have been taken down in Tower Hamlets in east London as well as Birmingham. On Monday, St George's cross flags were pictured on the A1206 on the Isle of Dogs in the east of the capital, after campaigners attached them following an online movement called 'Operation Raise the Colours'. BirminghamLive also reported flags that have been flown in areas of the city have been removed by the local council. Asked what the Prime Minister's view is on the councils that have removed the flags, Sir Keir's official spokesman said on Monday: 'I think the PM has always talked about his pride of being British, the patriotism he feels. 'I think he's talked about that previously […] not least recently in relation to the Lionesses' successful campaign in the Euros. 'Patriotism will always be an important thing to him.' Asked if Sir Keir is supportive of people who put up English flags, the spokesman said: 'Absolutely, patriotism, putting up English flags. 'We put up English flags all around Downing Street every time the English football team – women's and men's – are out trying to win games for us.' Residents saw Manchester Road in Tower Hamlets, east London, lined with St George's flags over the weekend but only a few remained by Monday. Walking along the busy inner city street on Monday lunchtime, one local resident who did not want to give his name said: 'They were all along the street, lots of them. It looked nice really. It was very colourful. 'I saw them late on Saturday. They just appeared and only noticed they have all gone now.' His neighbour said: 'They all went up at the weekend and have come down now.' She added that she did not feel threatened or scared, but it was definitely a 'very pointed act'. The local resident, who did not want to be named, said: 'It was right they should come down as I think it was after the demonstration about asylum.' She said 'it was not about community', adding that normally when you see flags go up it is around a celebration or about bringing people together. A St George's Cross flag near the A1206 in the Isle of Dogs (Jordan Pettitt/PA) 'There was no noise or trouble about it. They just went up and I did not see anyone take them down.' She added: 'It was OK. I know a lot of people like it and it was bright.' Another resident said: 'It was all along the road. It was nice. There was nothing wrong with it. 'It went all along to the Britannia Hotel.' He added it was 'good to see' because 'so much today is about division and I am just proud of being English'. The Britannia Hotel in Canary Wharf has been at the centre of protests over asylum seekers in recent weeks. Tower Hamlets Council said it has a 'policy setting out which flags are flown from council buildings and on which occasions'. In a statement, the council added: 'We are aware members of the public have been putting up St George flags on various structures. 'While we recognise people wish to express their views, we have a responsibility to monitor and maintain council infrastructure. 'Where flags are attached to council-owned infrastructure without permission, they may be removed as part of routine maintenance.' A Birmingham City Council spokesperson said: 'We proudly fly the Union flag outside the Council House every day and recognise the importance of the Union flag and flag of St George as symbols of national pride. 'Brummies are proud to be British and proud that this is a welcoming city celebrating many different cultures. 'When it comes to items attached to lamp posts, it is normal council procedure for these to be removed on a regular basis, in line with our health and safety obligations. 'As has always been the case, people are free to fly or hang flags from their homes or gardens, but we ask that they are not attached to street furniture.'


Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Childfree zealots are anti-humanity
Few things in life are more French than a dispute animée about holidays. While the Spanish enjoy an easy relationship with mañana and the Italians savour il dolce far niente (sweet idleness), the French will incite a riot over any threat to their leisure time faster than you can say faire une pause. It's therefore little surprise to witness the ardourof government officials in condemning childfree resorts, a rare but growing feature of French holidaymaking. Saint-Delis in Normandy is but one hotel offering an 'ever more exclusive and peaceful experience' with 'absolute relaxation' for only €334 a night. The existence of such facilities has prompted Laurence Rossignol, a former families minister, to propose that adult-only venues should be banned. The Socialist party senator claimed that they 'institutionalise and legitimise intolerance', adding for good measure that 'to not like children is to not like humanity itself'. With rates of childlessness only climbing worldwide, it's a debate that will only become more pertinent. France's fertility rate is a mere 1.66 births per woman, according to the World Bank, with birthrates at their lowest ebb since the second world war. In Britain (1.56 births per woman), the Office for National Statistics recently revealed that a slender majority of women turned 30 without having had their first child in 2020, for the first time in history. Such is the scale of the childlessness that even the bien pensants are spooked. Last year French president Emmanuel Macron called for 'demographic rearmament', offering six months parental leave for both parents, free fertility checks for 25-year-olds, and more funding for reproductive technology. The vogue for childfree hospitality indicates this is as much a cultural problem as a financial or even technological one. Earlier this year France's high commissioner for childhood, Sarah El Haïry, felt obliged to publicly rebuke anti-child attitudes, arguing that the country must resist the notion 'that children aren't welcome on a restaurant terrace'. To some degree the reaction is overwrought. One travel company group reckons that only 3 per cent of France's hotels and resorts qualify as childfree, and many of those visiting will be parents who have dropped Josephine and Gabriel off at the in-laws for a weekend of amour – or at least a few nights of unbroken sleep. Having the odd pub that bars patrons still in primary school is likewise no great crisis if there's a more family-friendly alternative nearby, nor should there be any objection to the curfews imposed in many British venues, ordering children home for bedtime. Even if we're allowing kids to vote, there's no need to have them hogging the barstools. But there is a darker side to these reasonable requests. While the decision not to have children is a legitimate exercise of personal agency, the emboldened childfree movement – who dislike the more exposing 'childless' description – are increasingly arguing that other people's children should be neither seen nor heard. I've visited cafes – a trade heavily reliant on mothers of young children – who will post signs declaring that dogs are allowed, but children merely tolerated. See also the growth in childfree weddings: as if a marriage without children isn't basically a tax avoidance scheme. Public transport is another battleground, with a viral TikTok clip from April 2023 showing a man throw a hissy fit over a baby crying on a plane stuck in a holding pattern. This June an American sports pundit called for parents to 'brain rot the baby on TikTok' if it starts crying in the sky, and only a few days ago the Standard reported that a fight broke out on a Ryanair flight in response to infant tears. This is all to say that childfree zealots are as prone to temper tantrums as the toddlers they despise. Much of this comes downstream of intellectual attempts to paint child-rearing as a quirky personal interest, rather than the only reason any of us are alive. No doubt all parents enjoy a slither of solipsism in replicating their genes. But this is rather undercut by the self-sacrifice of raising the pickles, as many childless people cite when justifying their decision not to have any. Still, the childless are happy to draw from the welfare state when they reach their autumn years, funded, naturally, by other people's children. All of that is anyway besides the point. At the risk of sounding like a heartbleeder, what matters is that children are people like any other. They can be loud, annoying and inconsiderate, much like adults. Both deserve a place in public, even if it upsets those with dual incomes and no kids.