Addressing climate injustice: A global responsibility unmet

Editor's note: Yasiru Ranaraja, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a researcher on maritime affairs and expert on Belt and Road Initiative development. He co-founded Belt and Road Initiative Sri Lanka (BRISL), an international development organization in Sri Lanka, and serves as its founding director. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

At the heart of the ongoing 29th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Baku, Azerbaijan, is a critical call for action on climate injustice, recognizing the disproportionate impact of climate change on developing nations that have contributed the least to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These vulnerable countries bear significant losses and damages, from infrastructure destruction to ecosystem collapse, yet lack the resources to fully address or mitigate these consequences. This inequity has spotlighted the Loss and Damage article of the Paris Agreement, designed to offer compensation to countries suffering irreparable harm due to climate change.

The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities is central to this issue, as it calls for fair burden-sharing in global climate action. Since the inception of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the developing nations have been arguing for greater financial and technological support from more affluent, higher-emitting countries with historical responsibilities for climate crisis. Yet despite repeated commitments, including the annual pledge of a $100-billion climate fund under the Paris Agreement, the wealthier nations have consistently fallen short. The failure of the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to impose binding emissions reduction targets, underscores the struggle to align national interests with global imperatives.

Paris Agreement: Strengthening commitments through transparency and NDCs

The Paris Agreement's transparency requirements, together with nationally determined contributions (NDCs) serve as legal safeguards, creating two significant outcomes that reinforce accountability and cooperation among nations. Transparency enables all member parties to openly assess each other's contributions to mitigating climate change. This visibility not only enhances a country's public image and international reputation but also builds a framework where all nations are incentivized to strive for increasingly ambitious climate goals. Holding each other to account encourages progressive action, yielding a better off outcome for the global community.

This legal framework aims to standardize expectations, creating a culture of compliance that is less about punitive measures and more about mutual commitment to climate objectives. Transparency fosters reciprocal accountability, incentivizing countries to improve their NDCs. For instance, China's recent NDC demonstrates this commitment, with substantial advancements observed during the Belt and Road Initiative Sri Lanka's study of sustainable pathways in Jiangxi Province in east China. China's example shows how transparent reporting supports both domestic and international efforts, reinforcing the cumulative impact of each country's progress on the global climate front.

This year's Global Stocktake, the component of the Paris Agreement that says the parties shall periodically take stock of its implementation to assess collective progress, further strengthens transparency by providing a collective assessment of progress, pinpointing areas where nations must accelerate action to meet the 1.5 degrees Celsius target of the Paris Agreement. Through this periodic review, countries have both the opportunity and the responsibility to enhance their NDCs, marking an iterative and legally protective approach toward achieving global climate goals.

Regulating greenhouse gases in shipping:

A central challenge in the regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) within the maritime sector stems from the conflicting principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and no more favorable treatment (NMFT). While the NMFT mandates equal treatment across all ships, according to international maritime treaty instruments established by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the CBDR acknowledges the varying capacities of countries, particularly in accommodating the needs of developing nations. This legal clash has complicated the IMO's efforts to establish a universally accepted regulatory framework.

If the IMO fails to act decisively in implementing the Paris Agreement's mandate on GHG emissions, it risks losing its credibility as the global authority on maritime regulation. Inaction would signal an inability to achieve cohesive, sector-wide standards, diminishing the IMO's influence. The European Union's unilateral action through the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), established outside the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), already underscores this risk. The EU ETS could prompt other developing nations to adopt independent measures, fragmenting the industry and potentially rendering global shipping regulations dysfunctional.

Furthermore, the EU ETS raises concerns of extraterritorial jurisdiction, as it imposes regulatory requirements on emissions beyond EU borders. For developing nations, this measure can be viewed as an overreach into their domestic policies and economies, intensifying their concerns about fairness in international climate agreements. If the IMO does not provide a balanced, inclusive framework that incorporates both the CBDR and NMFT, the risk grows that countries will pursue disparate regulatory paths, undermining global efforts to reduce maritime emissions effectively.

To achieve a fair and sustainable solution, the IMO must reconcile these principles within a structure that leverages market-based solutions, such as emissions trading or carbon pricing, in ways that respect the developmental needs of all countries. Only through unified, credible regulation can the IMO maintain its status as the legitimate regulatory body for the global maritime industry.

Moving forward: Striving for equitable and practical solutions

As the world stands at a critical juncture, actionable commitments moving beyond pledges are necessary to close the climate finance gap, enhance transparency, and empower NDCs to facilitate measurable progress. Addressing maritime emissions through fair regulations and market-based incentives remains a priority, especially under the IMO's purview.

There's an urgent need for genuine collaboration between developed and developing nations. This is the only way to ensure that climate action becomes equitable, feasible and genuinely impactful for all stakeholders.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)