CARACAS, Oct 29 (IPS) – Climate finance will come under intense scrutiny during COP29, and its distribution aligned with scientific analysis of the impacts of climate change, but the methodology ignores the inequality in research networks of the Global South.Climate finance will be at the epicenter of the discussion at the UN Climate Change Conference 2024 (COP29). The focus will be on strengthening the fund and defining the conditions under which the countries of the Global South will be able to access this money. However, little is said about the scientific research that is required to gather the evidence and data to prove the loss and damage caused by the impact of climate change in developing countries.
One of the points under discussion is the need for countries of the Global South to provide comprehensive, scientifically backed reports on how they are being directly affected by the impacts of climate change. This requirement guarantees that money will flow to the most affected countries, but it ignores the inequality present in scientific research networks in the Global South.
Floods and the effects of storms or hurricanes are not the only topics we are discussing. For example, will Latin American countries, such as Brazil or Argentina, be ready to provide data and evidence of how global warming precipitated an increase in dengue cases among their citizens in 2024?
Dengue cases in Latin America tripled compared to the same period in 2023. The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) compiled reports of more than 12 million cases of dengue fever in the region up to middle October and, undoubtedly, this additional health burden is part of the less talked about impacts of climate change.
Research centers in Brazil or Argentina, two of the countries with the best scientific networks in the region, can surely deliver the studies to support a financial request to cover these health-related damages. But the scenario is very different if we look at the scientific networks of other Latin American countries such as Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, or my native Venezuela.
More than 3,000 Venezuelan scientists have left the country for lack of support and financial problems in its laboratories since 2009, according to the follow-up done by researcher Jaime Requena, a member of the Academy of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences (Acfiman, its acronym in Spanish). This is equivalent to half of the Venezuelan scientific force, considering that Venezuela had 6,831 active researchers in the Researcher Promotion Program (PPI) in 2009.
Only 11 Venezuelan scientists participated as authors in all the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In AR6, the most recent IPCC report, only three authors were Venezuelan.
Colombia, Peru, and Uruguay were also represented by three researchers in AR6, while other countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia did not even manage to add a scientist to the group of more than 700 authors.
Climatologist Paola Andrea Arias was part of the Colombian representation. She is one of those promoting that the IPCC broaden the diversity of authors in the next report on the effects of climate change in the world.
“We all do science with different perspectives; we will follow the same methods and the same standards, but we have different perspectives. We ask different questions and have different priorities. We see in science the possibility of answering or solving different problems and, obviously, that will be very focused on your reality, the world in which you live, the country or city where you are,” said Arias when I asked her about her participation in AR6.
The low participation of Latin American scientists in global research on climate change, such as that of the IPCC, also means less space and dissemination for those studies that try to track the impacts of climate change in the region. This pattern is also repeated in Africa and Asia.
Promoting more research on the damages and impacts of climate change in the Global South, in the end, is not something that can be separated from climate finance. A clear example is that the Development Bank of Latin America (CAF) has just created a scientific committee for its biodiversity conservation fund, as announced during COP16 on biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.
CAF explained that this new biodiversity committee will have “a key role” with recommendations based on scientific evidence to invest in environmental projects. The first tasks of this scientific committee will be focused on providing recommendations for conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of ecosystems in the Amazon, Cerrado, and Chocó, a program that will have access to 300 million dollars.
The creation of a scientific committee to deliver climate finance can be a first step, as shown by CAF’s experience in biodiversity. To move forward on this path, however, it is necessary to promote more funding for Latin American, African, and Asian scientists to do more local research on the impacts of climate change. It’s the only way to gather the scientific evidence to support the contention that the climate crisis represents an obstacle to development in those countries with the largest populations and the greatest number of disadvantages.
This opinion piece is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram
© Inter Press Service (2024) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service
