International Climate Justice

I am pleased to open today’s timely debate, which comes just ahead of the 31st conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—COP31—in Turkey and to have the opportunity to firmly reiterate the Government’s and, I hope, the Parliament’s, strong commitment to climate justice. As we debate today’s motion, I ask members to reflect on the extreme weather that is affecting communities across the world. We have the strongest El Niño on record, which is intensifying climate change, delivering higher temperatures and exacerbating risks globally.

Scotland is clearly not immune to that, but it is beyond doubt that the worst impacts will not be felt here or in any of the other historic emitters in the global north that are most responsible for climate change. They will instead be borne by the most vulnerable communities in the global south, which have contributed least to the crisis but are paying the highest price, which is an injustice.

Achieving climate justice is not simply an environmental issue; it is a human issue that affects health, food security, economies and global stability. The accumulating impacts of the crisis will be felt everywhere, and we will all feel those impacts if we do not act to achieve climate justice for all communities. Without climate justice and without financially supporting the most climate-vulnerable communities, we put the world’s peace and security at risk. That is not only my view or the Scottish Government’s view; it is a position that is shared by experts.

Recently, the Scottish Parliament was the first Parliament to host a screening of “The People’s Emergency Briefing”. I thank the members who facilitated that screening, which the First Minister and I attended. In the film, I was struck by the contribution of Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, who is a former senior British Army officer. He talked about the impact of climate change on communities in the global south that are being forced to migrate to other countries and regions. They face pressures over basic resources such as water and are, in some cases, joining armed groups because they can no longer make a living from farming. He said that climate change posed the greatest risk to global and national security. He described a system that faces

“cascading crises”

in

“food, health, infrastructure, migration, energy and extreme weather”

that are all linked and will potentially all hit at the same time. If they are not addressed, they

“risk overwhelming government systems and eroding democratic stability.”

Civil unrest can be fuelled by food shortages, displacement from homes and a lack of access to water. Those are not future problems. Addressing climate change and achieving climate justice around the world is essential to national security and peace today. The politicians who deny the need for climate action and climate justice absolutely miss that point. Simply, climate injustice fuels instability that directly affects United Kingdom security. Those who want to be in government but deny the need for intervention and support for the global south are proving their unsuitability for power.

Climate justice remains at the heart of the Scottish National Party Government’s climate and international work, which reflects our values and responsibilities in an interconnected world.

In my previous role as energy minister, I would have been happy to debate energy security and its impact on our way of life. I want to concentrate my remarks on climate justice and the need for investment in the communities that face the greatest impacts caused by weather events associated with climate change but also by the lack of investment in their infrastructure.

Let me outline some of the actions that we are taking on our commitments. Since 2012, Scotland has supported community-led climate resilience in some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries through our world-leading climate justice fund. In Malawi, our support has helped restore access to safe drinking water after climate-related flooding had contaminated local water supplies. In Zambia, disabled people are shaping local plans for floods and droughts through community committees, which gives them a voice, and they are also coming up with solutions. In Rwanda, women wanted to earn an income by restoring climate-damaged land, but childcare responsibilities stood in their way of doing so, which is why we helped to establish community childcare centres—

I will in a second.

We helped establish community childcare centres to enable women to work on vital climate restoration projects.

Our approach is simple. Those who are most affected by climate change and its impacts on their communities know what they need, and we are there to work with them to shape the response.

First, I have some more information on how we work with partners. It is not just Scotland-based organisations that we work with—there are also in-country organisations, which is really important. When we work with organisations such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, they have the ability to work with in-country partners that they have established links with. We will not be deploying resources and solutions to communities—David Green is trying to signal something to me, but I have not quite worked out what it is. I will be able to give him more information on that point as I go forward.

Some of the impacts of climate change cannot be avoided in the global south. Homes are destroyed and livelihoods are lost. Sometimes, what is lost cannot be replaced. That is why we became the first Government to commit dedicated funding for climate-related loss and damage. In the previous session of Parliament, we mobilised more than £10 million for loss and damage, including for projects in East Africa, the Pacific, the Andean Highlands and the Bay of Bengal. The women for the world project supported indigenous Maasai women in Kenya to play a greater role in local decision making on land management, conservation and climate adaptation.

We are also sharing our learning on our loss and damage fund and how we have deployed it, because we have not just pledged it; we are deploying it in programmes with other Governments, particularly with other devolved Governments that we speak to in partnership with our Regions4 and Under2 Coalition partners. Indeed, some of our bilaterals in the conferences of the parties that we go to help us to assist them with programmes that they want to get off the ground.

Achieving climate justice is not just about the programmes that we support; it is about how we use our voice and stand up for our values. Our funding for loss and damage at COP26 helped build the momentum for the creation of the first dedicated global loss and damage fund at COP28. Creating the fund, though, was only the beginning. Just last week, we saw an important milestone, with the fund for responding to loss and damage board provisionally setting aside US$21.6 million in response to the devastating floods in Nepal. I warmly welcome that decision.

I want to build on this at COP31. I will go to COP31 to champion climate justice, to talk about what our loss and damage fund has achieved, to encourage the deployment of the UN loss and damage fund to get programmes on the ground, and to champion the role of regions and devolved Governments in accelerating climate action and resilience, including in supporting efforts to mobilise greater climate finance. It is very important that we have that position so that we can go to these international events and amplify the key priorities, particularly of devolved Governments. Next week, I will bring together a range of voices, including young people, climate activists, people with disabilities and those involved in delivering our programmes in partner countries, for the round table ahead of COP31.

Global climate justice also requires a coalition of the willing to come together and advance action. We are currently the president of Regions4, which is a global network of largely global south subnational Governments. Through our presidency, we are strengthening co-operation on adaptation, resilience and biodiversity, and ensuring that devolved Governments have a stronger voice on the international stage. In fact, I was at the biodiversity COP—the 17conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity—in Armenia last week, where we were recognised by the UN organisers and had our own day of plenary sessions. As subnational, devolved and regional Governments, we were able to show how we are acting in a range of climate action and nature restoration activities.

We are also the outgoing co-chair of the Under2 Coalition. We have served three terms as the co-chair, during which we founded the knowledge-sharing platforms that are the just transition task force and the net zero futures policy forum, which continue to promote and share best practice. As we step down from that role, we leave behind a stronger and more ambitious coalition that is united in its determination to reach net zero and also to not wait for state actors to take action but to carry on using the powers that we have.

As I have set out, the Government’s action on the international stage is underpinned by an unwavering commitment to climate justice. Turning to the motion that is before us, let us consider what climate justice looks like in practice. It means getting climate finance to vulnerable communities before disaster strikes, helping them to build resilience and adapt to a changing climate. It means giving countries that are suffering from the worst impacts of climate change the tools to protect lives and livelihoods while supporting a just transition that creates opportunity for people. Above all, it means leaving future generations a world that is safer, fairer and more secure, so that people can stay in the communities where they want to stay. People do not, as the far right would have us believe, want to leave home and go elsewhere. We have a responsibility to assist them in that endeavour.

The decisions that we take in this decade will shape the world that our children inherit, and that debate matters. In stark contrast to global reductions in aid—including, sadly, by Westminster—the Scottish Government remains firmly committed to climate justice. Through the programme for government, we have committed to continue and grow the climate justice fund beyond the £36 million that was invested in the previous parliamentary session, including support for loss and damage. I am extremely proud to be part of a Government that is keeping its promises in that regard. Despite the limited resources, we are supporting communities that face the greatest impact of a climate crisis that they did little to cause. The impact on the global north will be catastrophic if we do not invest in those communities and help Governments in the global south.

Today, we have an opportunity to send a clear and positive message that the Parliament is united in our commitment to climate justice, as we were in the previous parliamentary session. In that regard, I am happy to say that I will support the positive amendments from some of the other parties. However, I will be rejecting the amendments that question the need for that commitment.

I move,

That the Parliament reaffirms its commitment to climate justice, accepting that those in the Global South who have done the least to cause climate change are facing the worst impacts, and recognises that Scotland’s commitment to play its role in the global response to tackling climate change and biodiversity loss, including addressing climate related loss and damage, is guided by the principles of climate justice, fairness and global solidarity.

15:47

Every Sunday, churches of all denominations throughout Scotland make collections and give to organisations such as SCIAF. Hundreds of millions of pounds come from people in Scotland who fundamentally disagree with what the member is saying and who understand that we have a responsibility to help communities that are most at risk. Is the member saying that they should not do that? Is he saying that the Government should not do that?

Will the member take an intervention?

Will the member take an intervention so that I can answer his question?

Will the member take an intervention?

For clarity, were the Conservatives to be in charge of the Scottish Government, would they stop all the programmes associated with climate justice, which assist Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda?

Finlay Carson has rightly pointed out the impact of climate change in Scotland, which I appreciate. Does he therefore disagree with Kemi Badenoch, who wants to scrap all net zero targets and who intends to ban candidates from standing in the next general election if they speak up about net zero and climate change?

Around the world, the devastating impacts of climate change are not a distant threat—they are very much a daily reality. The extreme weather that much of Scotland experienced over the weekend shows that those impacts are also much closer to home than they have been in the past, which demonstrates the growing threat of climate damage to all nations. However, that is nothing compared with the experiences of communities in the global south, who are suffering the most severe consequences of climate damage despite being those who did the least to cause it. During my involvement with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, that point has come up time and again at meetings, and it is also a continual theme at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conferences.

The motion that we are discussing today shows that Scotland recognises that reality and understands that genuine climate action cannot be just about achieving our domestic net zero targets but must be rooted in global solidarity, equity and the protection of human rights.

I am proud that Scotland has made a conscious decision to lead the way when it comes to our contribution to climate justice. Are we perfect? No, we are not. Do we have a lot more to do? Yes, we do. However, in 2012 we became the first nation in the world to launch a dedicated climate justice fund. Over the course of the previous parliamentary session, that fund was trebled to £36 million. In addition to the Scottish Government’s £24 million climate just communities programme, Scotland is moving away from the traditional top-down aid and towards locally led participatory action in Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia.

That means putting marginalised groups such as women, young people and people with disabilities at the heart of decision making. In Malawi, Scotland’s initiatives explicitly target women and youth to build agricultural and disaster resilience. Erratic weather is disrupting Malawi’s two main growing seasons, leading to hunger, malnutrition, stunted development and loss of life. Extreme weather events have decimated crops, damaged infrastructure and led to food insecurity and the spread of disease.

In Rwanda, 65 per cent of the projects that the Scottish Government funds are embedded directly into local government priority contracts, ensuring systemic long-term change—I say that in response to Mr Massey’s earlier comments. Many third sector organisations across Scotland are also involved in climate justice work, including Aid for Education, which is based in my constituency. Aid for Education has undertaken some remarkable work and was established by Douglas and Sarah Kakooza. Douglas is from Rwanda, and Sarah is from Northern Ireland. The slogan of their charity is:

“Helping Rwanda’s children have a future”.

How can anyone disagree with that slogan? If a small charity from Inverclyde can play its part in helping future generations in Rwanda, the wealthy nations in the global north certainly need to do much more than they are doing.

Scotland has also led the world by breaking the taboo on loss and damage. For too long, the international community completely ignored the hard truth that some climate impacts cannot be adapted to. Homes are lost, cultures are eroded and land is permanently swallowed by rising seas. The UN Food and Agriculture Organization—FAO—has warned that the strong to very strong El Niño effect will contribute to 2.6 million Malawians being food insecure from now until next March. That is a horrendous figure to discuss, but it is also the reality of the situation.

The Scottish Government has since allocated £10 million to support non-economic and slow-onset loss and damage across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, but we cannot be complacent, and groups such as Stop Climate Chaos Scotland are rightly pushing Scotland to go further.

The calls are clear. We must continue to increase our climate justice fund from 2027 onwards, deepen our commitments to loss and damage, and use our voice on the international stage to push the multilateral fund for responding to loss and damage to move faster—I say to Mr Carson that we must also use our voice in that way regardless of whether matters are devolved. As we look towards future global summits, Scotland must continue to step forward, not backwards.

I urge colleagues from across the chamber to reaffirm today that Scotland’s commitment to climate justice is unwavering. I say to Mr Massey that, in attempting to become more climate resilient ourselves, we cannot forget that our way of life has contributed to the climate chaos that communities across the global south have experienced for decades, notwithstanding developments that are taking place at the moment, despite their carbon footprint being minuscule compared with ours.

16:24

Some members might remember that I recently had the pleasure of securing a members’ business debate to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of Blantyre in Malawi, which, of course, shares its name and deep ties with Blantyre in my constituency. During that debate, contributions from members highlighted the pioneering partnership working that had developed between Scotland and Malawi over the years. Today, much of that work is related to climate change. Malawi is a prime example of a country in the global south that is referred to in the motion that is before us—one that has contributed relatively little to climate change but is facing some of the worst impacts. Agriculture is very important to the country’s economy, so extreme weather and water shortages can have a huge impact.

The Scottish Government has long advocated for the principle that the global north holds the largest and most immediate moral responsibility to address the climate crisis. It is a matter of justice. That principle of climate justice and a commitment to support the global south to take climate action were embedded in the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2019. Scotland was the first nation to commit funds specifically to that end and, in 2012, launched the climate justice fund. That fund supports community-led projects in countries including Malawi, Rwanda and Zambia, with a focus on climate adaptation, resilient livelihoods, water and sanitation, disaster risk reduction and food security. Scotland was also the first global north Government to commit funding explicitly to address climate change-related loss and damage. That funding supports communities experiencing climate impacts that cannot be prevented through adaptation alone. Those community-led projects are prime examples of climate justice work: they have local ownership at their core, with communities actively designing and implementing climate interventions rather than simply being the recipients of aid via more traditional, passive routes. Taking that co-designing approach to finding solutions that are rooted in local context and driven by local needs means that very targeted and effective work can be carried out for comparatively small sums.

During my recent members’ business debate, which I referred to earlier, I was grateful to Clare Adamson for describing the work that the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee undertook in the previous parliamentary session to look at how the relatively small pots of money that were provided to Malawi to map wells in the country turned out to be vital when the country experienced terrible flooding.

Relatedly, I thank Water Witness International, a charity that is based here in Edinburgh, for sending over a briefing ahead of this debate. The charity is a long-term partner of the Scottish Government and, most recently, was a delivery partner in the climate just communities programme. It leads action, research and advocacy to ensure that people can access the water that they need to thrive and are protected against floods, drought, pollution, ecosystem degradation and water conflict.

Does Clare Haughey agree that access to water is also a gendered issue? If they do not have ready access to water, women have to take hours out of their days, away from other activities, to collect it.

I absolutely agree with that, and I add that children bear a burden of collecting water that, perhaps, is not as widely recognised as women’s role is. The burden also takes children away from education.

Most climate impacts are water related, so investing in fair, well-managed water projects—such as the ones that Water Witness International champions—is central to building climate resilience and protecting those who are hit hardest. As climate change intensifies, the pressure on water supply and the decisions on who controls it, who profits from it and whose needs come first become a matter of climate justice. In order to stand any chance of tackling the climate emergency, and to best support people who are already suffering from its impacts, we, in Scotland and internationally, must all work together.

The SNP Scottish Government is committed to doing all that we can to tackle the climate emergency and to support climate justice in the global south. As well as providing funding, we are committed to being a bridge builder on climate justice internationally, including utilising our convening and influencing position to amplify other voices. Devolved Governments such as ours play a crucial role in tackling climate change in our countries, so it is only right that we work to enhance the visibility and influence of other devolved Governments, cities and regions in multilateral climate discussions. Doing so ensures that voices such as Scotland’s and those of our partners help to shape global progress.

We should not indulge in the culture wars that spring up around climate change. I have been quite shocked by what I have heard from Finlay Carson, but I was not so shocked by what I heard from Reform, as I heard what I expected to hear.

We cannot shirk our duty to future generations by not taking our share of responsibility for those who are most affected today.

16:30

It is right that the Parliament reaffirms its commitment to climate justice. It is right that we accept the fundamental truth that those in the global south who have done the least to cause the climate crisis are already facing its worst impacts. It is right that we recognise Scotland’s role in the global response to climate change, biodiversity loss and climate-related loss and damage. That response must be guided by justice, fairness and, of course, global solidarity.

The science is clear, and a human cost has already been paid. As we have heard, communities in Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America face intensifying droughts and floods, rising seas, failed harvests and the loss of homes, livelihoods and lives. Such effects are increasing year on year. Climate change is real and is being experienced right now.

I was glad that the national emergency briefing, which the cabinet secretary attended, was shown in the Parliament before the recess, and I hope that it will be shown on UK national television.

We are talking about the reality of climate change and how it is being experienced right now, so it is concerning that fewer than 30 per cent of MSPs are in the chamber. We must ask ourselves whether the issue is important to the other 70 per cent.

These are the present realities for people in the global south who bear almost no historical responsibility for the emissions that have driven climate change. Climate justice demands that those of us in industrialised nations, whose development was built on the burning of fossil fuels, accept our responsibilities and act accordingly.

Scotland has sought to lead. We have talked about COP26, when Scotland helped to break the long-standing deadlock on loss and damage. Scotland was the first nation to pledge to the loss and damage fund. That was not a symbolic measure but a concrete demonstration that a small country can still show moral leadership.

I agree. I have mentioned the loss and damage fund. Global debt is a matter that is reserved to the UK Government, but I fully support what David Green has said in that regard.

I also agree with other points that David Green’s Liberal Democrat colleague made. We must continue the approach of pushing for adequate grant-based finance in addition to existing aid budgets. That is fundamental. We must ensure that support reaches communities on the front line and is not diluted by bureaucracy or debt. As we have heard, that gives power back to local communities in the countries that have been mentioned.

Climate justice is not just about what happens far away; it is about providing consistency at home. In my constituency, we see the local face of a global problem. The coastline is already experiencing the pressures of rising sea levels, coastal erosion and more intense storms. That has been the case in East Lothian for at least the past 10 to 15 years. Communities along the coast, including those in Dunbar, understand what changing weather patterns mean for homes, farmland, infrastructure and biodiversity.

On the point that Finlay Carson made, farmers and land managers in the Lammermuirs know about the growing unpredictability of the seasons. That is why we need to do more in Scotland to tackle climate change. At the same time, our county is becoming a significant centre for renewable energy.

I go back to my point about grant-based finance, which is incredibly important. I know that the cabinet secretary engages with UK Government colleagues to push them on that point, and I think that the UK Government should be doing more on that.

To go back to the point about renewable energy, offshore wind developments, including the one at Berwick Bank, which has huge potential, place East Lothian at the centre of Scotland’s contribution to clean power. We must seize that opportunity to create skilled jobs, strengthen energy security and ensure that communities share the benefits while also protecting our natural environment and adapting to the change that is already under way.

Biodiversity loss and climate change are also inseparable. The healthy ecosystems that we have heard about, such as peatlands, wetlands, woodlands and marine habitats, store carbon, provide a buffer against extreme weather and support the wildlife and landscapes that define my county and our country. Duncan Massey said that Scotland’s contribution to emissions is around 0.08 per cent, but we still have a responsibility to play our part for people in Scotland and the rest of the world.

Scotland’s work on nature restoration, peatland recovery and protecting our seas is all part of the same justice agenda. We cannot adopt a “We’re all right, Jack” attitude and just move on. We have done that for a number of years and that is why the global south has suffered. When we degrade nature, we undermine the resilience of vulnerable communities everywhere, including our own communities. Fairness requires a just transition here, too, and workers and communities must not be left behind as we move away from fossil fuels.

Global solidarity means that we must not lecture others while failing to meet our own targets or allowing short-term interests to dilute long-term responsibility. It means supporting international mechanisms to deliver real resources for adaptation, resilience and protection against loss and damage and it means recognising that Scotland’s voice is strongest when we act with ambition and integrity, whether in international fora or in the decisions that we take in this chamber.

The role of the East Lothian climate action network—ELCAN—cannot be understated, and nor can the role of other climate networks in Scotland because they lead, co-ordinate and motivate local action.

The motion before us is not radical; it is necessary. I urge members to support it and, more important, to ensure that the commitment that it expresses is matched by continued practical action at home and abroad, for the sake of communities that are already suffering the impacts of climate change and for the generations who will inherit the consequences of what we do, or fail to do, now.

16:36

This has been a really helpful debate so far, because of the importance of climate justice and of the work that we are doing on it in the Scottish Parliament. Although it is not a devolved matter, we can make a real difference on it here.

I begin by saying that we live in one of the most beautiful countries in the world, from the hardy landscape of the Western Isles to the stunning scenery around Montrose on the east coast. I feel privileged to represent a constituency that reflects Scotland’s diversity, with its thriving town centres, bustling high streets, farms, rural communities and open countryside, including the absolutely stunning Clyde valley.

We know that enabling a just transition to renewable energy is absolutely vital to protecting Scotland’s natural beauty and reducing our contributions to climate change. As many members have said, such change impacts people across the globe who themselves have done very little to contribute to it but whose communities are paying the price. That is why we should all care deeply about climate justice.

Across my constituency, the transition to a greener future that will help to tackle our contributions to climate change is already visible. Renewable energy plays an increasingly important role, particularly through onshore wind farms such as Kype Muir, which stands as a testament to Scotland’s commitment to tackling climate change and contributes to nearby communities such as Stonehouse by supporting local groups and causes through sharing its profits.

I have already mentioned Montrose. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of visiting the Seagreen offshore wind farm just off the coast there. It is Scotland’s largest offshore wind farm and can provide more than 1,075MW of electricity, which helps to power almost two thirds of Scottish homes. Scotland is a world leader in promoting the development of renewable energy and in doing our bit as part of a commitment to achieving climate justice. We have onshore and offshore wind power; tidal power is provided by facilities such as Orbital, the world’s most powerful operational tidal turbine, based in powerful tidal streams near Orkney; and our publicly owned water companies make significant investment in pumped storage hydro power.

There is, of course, much to do to ensure that we are fully able to utilise our nation’s renewables bounty. Scotland’s energy bonanza from the oil and gas boom was squandered by successive Westminster Governments’ misuse of money that could have been used to help turbocharge the transition and contribute to climate justice abroad.

We have had ministerial consent to work not only on climate justice but on overseas development since 2005. Does the member agree that some members may be choosing—

I apologise, Presiding Officer. I guess that it is only human to want to face the person you are speaking to.

Does Mr Kerr agree with me that some members are choosing to ignore the fact that we have had ministerial consent to carry out the work since 2005? Does he also agree that some members are taking a deliberately narrow view because that fact does not fit with their ideology? Will he join me in calling out a UK Government that has made a 90 per cent reduction in international development assistance for countries such as Africa and our partner countries, including Malawi?

Absolutely. That is vital context. As I will come on to cover later in my remarks, the distinction between devolved and reserved competences is quite blurred in relation to a whole host of topics, and the impact that that distinction has on people in Scotland, and across the world, does not always fall neatly into those two lines. I join the minister in condemning the cut that the UK Government has made.

I come to the point made this week by Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has finally come to see what the SNP had seen in the past: had the UK Government followed the example of another small country of around 5.5 million people—Norway—we would now have a sovereign wealth fund worth more than £1 trillion. That is just one example of the cultural and economic vandalism that has been visited on Scotland through catastrophically poor stewardship of our nation’s assets and people.

An energy welfare fund has been mooted, somewhat belatedly, but it appears that that might bypass Scotland entirely. The SNP firmly believes that the money should be ring fenced and invested in renewable and low-carbon projects in Scotland. Such energy wealth should not be used to prop up a failing Westminster system. We have seen what happens when that is the case. GB Energy was supposed to employ 1,000 people in Scotland and help to drive forward renewables development. However, that was another broken promise made by Labour during the 2024 election campaign, just like its promises on saving Grangemouth and on bringing down people’s energy bills by £300 a year. It has turned out to be about as honest as former Scottish Labour leader Lord Sarwar’s deeply held opposition to the House of Lords.

Having engaged with many stakeholders, I have concerns that the UK Government’s participation in damaging the Scottish renewables energy sector is far from finished. The long-term national blueprint that the National Energy Systems Operator is developing—the strategic spatial energy plan—could seriously risk investment, depending on the pathways that it sets out that are open to the UK Government. Only two of the six pathways would support our offshore wind pipeline and provide the grid connections that are required, potentially costing tens of billions of pounds of investment.

I hope that common sense will prevail. However, looking at Westminster’s record on ensuring Scotland’s energy and the economy makes me quite sceptical.

Although I firmly believe that Scotland needs the full powers of independence to address many of the deep-seated challenges that we face, I am also proud that the SNP Scottish Government continues to use the powers available to it to champion efforts to tackle the climate crisis and, crucially, to uphold our commitment to climate justice. The cross-party support in the chamber has been very welcome.

Putting climate justice at the heart of what the Government does sends a signal about the nation that we want to be. Climate justice is a people-centred, human rights-based approach that recognises that climate change is not only an environmental issue but poses questions of fairness and equality. It acknowledges that those who have contributed least to the climate crisis—who are often people who do not enjoy the quality of life that we enjoy here—are frequently the ones who suffer its most severe impacts.

I realise that I am running over time, Presiding Officer. I will close by saying that I am proud to support the Scottish Government’s commitment to climate justice, to do our part to reduce emissions and to ensure that climate action goes hand in hand with fairness, equality and human rights, both at home and abroad.

16:33

I welcome the Government’s motion. I want to focus on why achieving international climate justice is not simply a moral obligation but an economic necessity.

Scotland has long recognised the polluter-pays principle in our approach to environmental protection: those who cause pollution should bear the costs of addressing it. We are a prosperous nation whose development has benefited from generations of fossil fuel use. That brings with it a responsibility to help to lead on the transition to a low-carbon economy, including supporting those countries that contributed least to climate change but face some of the most severe consequences. That is a moral argument, but there is a compelling economic argument, too. Take food, for example. The UK imports around 40 per cent of its food, and we are particularly dependent on overseas producers for our fruit and vegetable supplies. Many of those supply chains run through countries that are already exposed to extreme heat, drought, flooding and other climate-related risks.

The UK Government’s own food security report identifies climate change as a risk to the agricultural capacity of some of our key trading partners. When harvests fail, the consequences do not stop at the borders of the affected countries. Reduced production can mean higher global prices, disrupted supply chains and increased costs for households here in Scotland. At a time when families are already under pressure on the cost of living, we should understand that helping communities overseas to protect their agriculture, water supplies and infrastructure is also an investment in our own resilience. We all understand the importance of investing in resilience before disaster strikes, rather than waiting until homes and infrastructure have been destroyed and then paying a much greater cost for recovery.

In an interconnected global economy, climate damage thousands of miles away can become a cost of living pressure here in Scotland. I appreciate that this debate is probably quite triggering for those who are on the right, which might explain why most of them are not here in the chamber. However, there is another consequence that we must be prepared to discuss honestly.

I will be perfectly honest and say that I am not entirely familiar with that aspect, but I am happy to look into it. I am always willing to be educated.

There are other consequences that we must be prepared to discuss honestly. Migration is a clear example. When people’s homes are repeatedly destroyed, when crops fail, when water supplies become unreliable and when livelihoods can no longer be sustained, people might have little choice but to move. Climate change is not the sole cause of migration, but the evidence is clear that climate hazards can contribute to displacement, directly through disasters or indirectly by undermining livelihoods. I say to those who are concerned about migration that if they want to reduce the pressures that can force people to leave their homes, they should care about tackling climate change and helping communities to adapt to its effects.

Yes. There is probably a depressing crossover with flat earthers as well.

We cannot credibly demand that people remain in places where they can no longer sustain their livelihoods while refusing to help address the conditions that drive them away.

Scotland cannot resolve such global challenges alone, but we can help to build resilience, support vulnerable communities and demonstrate that a just transition is possible. We can lead by example and, where we lead, others will follow. That means continuing to reduce our own emissions, ensuring that workers and communities at home are supported through the transition and maintaining a meaningful contribution to international climate finance.

Scotland has a record to build on. We established the climate justice fund in 2012, becoming the first country to commit funds specifically to climate justice. We were also the first country in the global north to commit funding to addressing loss and damage. We should be proud of that leadership, but, in turn, our ambition must be for it to lead to a lasting impact for the communities who need it most.

Our prosperity gives us the capacity to act. Our commitment to the polluter-pays principle gives us a framework for understanding responsibility. Our economic interests give us an additional reason to act. International climate justice is not about making a choice between helping others and protecting Scotland; it is about making an investment in a more resilient world, a more stable global economy and Scotland’s own future prosperity.

Will the member take an intervention?

Will Finlay Carson take an intervention?

Is Finlay Carson not aware of the fact that we have had ministerial consent since 2005? Is he deliberately ignoring that, or is he choosing not to acknowledge it at all?

Will the member take an intervention?

No, it has not.

Would Angela Ross acknowledge that that is one of the outcomes of the free market economy in which we currently live? Businesses will leave Scotland and go elsewhere because it is cheaper to work elsewhere. Sadly, there are emissions impacts as a consequence.

It has been an interesting debate. First, I will talk about some of the speeches that I thought hit many nails on the head.

Sanne Dijkstra-Downie absolutely got the spirit of what I was trying to achieve with the Government’s motion and with my speech. I wanted to talk about how climate justice is an investment for all of us. It is also a responsibility for us; I feel that it is a responsibility for us, even if others do not. I thought that her words were very considered, as were those of David Barratt, who made a really helpful contribution to the debate by talking about the economic arguments associated with climate justice. Even if members do not feel a moral responsibility to act to help communities in sub-Saharan Africa, which are most impacted by climate change, they should simply look at the cold, hard economic facts of how much our country relies on theirs for our food supply. I also made the point, as did others, about defence and security. David Barratt said that climate justice is an investment in a more resilient world, which I thought was absolutely bang on. It is an investment in a more resilient world, and in our own resilience. I really thank him for the speech that he made in that respect.

Stuart McMillan talked about Aid for Education in Greenock and the hyper-local interventions that are made in his constituency by people who care about this and who see it as our responsibility. Clare Haughey rightly talked about her constituency’s connection to Blantyre in Malawi, and she made the point about the disproportionality of labour in communities affected by access to water. I mentioned the impact on women, but she also rightly mentioned children.

She also said that our role is to amplify other voices. That gives me the opportunity to talk about something that I could not mention in my speech. We fund climate youth negotiators and green generation initiatives, which allow young people from communities in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda to come to COP and be involved in the negotiations that affect them. As a devolved Government, Scotland is not in those negotiations, but those young people, from those other countries, are. They have a seat at the table, and I feel very proud that we were able to do that.

I turn to some of the interventions that I found less helpful. I understand how important it is that we invest in climate resilience in our own country—for example, in tree planting. We have had 80,000 hectares of new woodland since 2019, and 90,000 hectares of peatland restoration. We are ploughing a lot of funding into all of that. We are also giving funding to farmers and growers, to help them to sustain their businesses, and indeed to pivot those businesses. I was therefore very disappointed that, when I asked Finlay Carson whether he believed in climate justice being something that the Scottish Government could be involved in, he said that he would not prioritise it or do any of those programmes if he were in my position.

I will finish my point. I was particularly disappointed to be told that we should not even be debating or talking about climate justice. I am sick to the back teeth of being told that this Parliament—and this Government—should get back in its box, particularly when we are doing good work that is making a difference both in those communities and in all the other ways in which we, as a country, benefit and in which we influence and assist countries across the world, where we might step out of our lane a little and do some work. I am talking about the loss and damage funding, which people have recognised as coming from the COP in Glasgow, from a commitment by the former First Minister. That is now a living and working programme that is making a difference in our partner countries. The enacting of that loss and damage fund has prompted the UN to have a loss and damage fund. It is widely accepted that we have done that. Small and devolved Governments can play their part.

I accept that David Green would like us to ask the UK Government to do more, and I consistently do that. In every speech that I give at COP or elsewhere on the topic, I ask for debt to be cancelled by the states that have those powers, and I will continue to do so. However, given that 90 per cent of international aid has been cut, thank goodness we are stepping outside our lane and doing something.

I would like to have referred to many other contributions, but I want to talk about our priorities in COP. In two weeks’ time—I say this to Angela Ross—I will be travelling to Turkey to represent the Scottish Government and the Scottish people at the conference of the parties there. I am sorry that that upsets her but, my goodness, what we get out of that as a country and the influence that we have is something that we should all be proud of. If Angela Ross wants to take the issue down to whether air miles will be associated with my visit, she should go ahead with such nasty politics. It is my intention to call for greater funding for loss and damage and to use our platform to get other countries to commit more for loss and damage. We are a first mover and an influencer on loss and damage.

As well as action on loss and damage, I will talk about other countries having climate justice funds that we can partner with, work together on and influence. We have had discussions with the Catalan Government and with the Welsh Government, which want to do more in that space.

We also want to get access to funding from private partners to augment what Governments are doing—not just this Government, but lots of Governments in this space—because there is a responsibility from the private sector, which uses the natural resources of the countries that it works in and should have more of a commitment.

To Paul Sweeney, I want to say that we are going to support the Labour amendment today, because we are committed to ensuring that our approach to climate justice remains cost-effective and innovative and actually makes a difference on the ground. We are undertaking an evaluation of the outcomes of the climate justice fund during the previous parliamentary session to look at exactly that. I also want to say that we work with a lot of the people that he referenced in his speech. As we grow the climate justice fund in this parliamentary session, we will review and evaluate the programmes. That will be an independent assessment of more than £36 million.

As members have reflected, five years ago, the world’s attention was on Glasgow as we hosted COP26, which was a huge moment for Scotland. Every time I go to a COP, whether it is the COP on biological diversity that was held in Armenia last week, COP31 in Antalya or the other COPs that I have been to, people still reference what Glasgow achieved. People are thankful for the signalling of greater climate justice that came from COP26 in Glasgow, and it is still talked about.

The UK will shortly take on the G20 presidency and, next summer, the G20 finance ministers will come to Scotland. The UK can show leadership and also design reforms to the global financial system, which needs to ease the debt. That speaks very much to David Green’s comments.

A recent report by ActionAid found that climate-vulnerable countries are forced to spend nearly 25 times more of their national budgets on debt repayment than on climate action. Malawi spends 24 per cent of its Government funding on repaying debt. That funding could be used for educating children, getting irrigation systems into farms and rebuilding after devastation by storms. However, Malawi has to pay the debt back, and it is being gamed by the financial institutions. Something desperately needs to be done.

Unsustainable debt repayments are consuming the resources that could be used to get countries back on their feet, so that they would not need such programmes. They could stand on their own two feet, become growing economies and fairer, more equal societies as a result.

I will draw my remarks to a close. I am reminded of the recent comments by Turkey’s COP31 president, Murat Kurum, while visiting the Pacific islands. He said that limiting warming to 1.5°C

“is a matter of survival—the survival of cultures, history, memories, your homeland, your homes—it’s that important”.

Those words capture the reality that many communities face, and I will not apologise for assisting partner countries and communities in allowing them to stay at home in a way that is safe, resilient and, eventually, prosperous for them. That is a good thing to do. When other countries are turning their back on international development funding, I feel proud that Scotland is standing strong on that. As David Barratt said, it is an investment in global resilience.