The launch of the Sea- level Rise Report - Press Conference

All right, wonderful. We're delighted to be joined by our friends, Navid Hanif, who, as you know, is the Assistant Secretary General in Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and Stephen Hill, Assistant Secretary General in the Office of the Legal Counsel, and also online, Bill Hare, Chief Executive Officer of Climate Analytics. They're here to brief you on the launch of the sea level rise report. So I don't know which one of you is going to take the floor first. Naveed, please.

Thank you, Stefan, and thank you, members of the media joining us for this launch. As Stefan mentioned, we will cover different aspects of the report. But first, let me convey our deep sympathy and our support to the people and governments of Nepal and China following the loss of lives and widespread destruction caused by severe flooding last week. We are here to launch a seminal report, which is prepared by the United Nations, on challenges related to sea level rise and ways and approaches to address them. I just want to share with you five messages, brief ones. First, sea levels are rising and rising faster, driven by human-induced climate change, exceptional ocean warming, because 91% of the heat is absorbed by oceans and melting glaciers. Global sea level rose by 4.7 millimeters a year between 2014 and 2023, but in 2024 it reached a record of 5.9 millimeters. And it's not a future risk anymore, it's present and accelerating. Second, This is not just an environmental challenge, it's a development emergency. Nearly one in 10 people worldwide already live in several coastal areas less than five meters above the high tide line. Rising sea threatens homes, livelihoods, ports, transport, energy, water systems, and public finances. The economic costs are already enormous. Coastal infrastructure damage has exceeded $1.8 trillion. Small island developing states suffered an estimated $153 billion in climate-related losses between 1970 and 2020. So the development gains are at risk. Third message is we cannot stop sea level rise this century. but we can determine how much worse it becomes. Because about half a meter, 0.5 meter of sea level rise is already locked in in this century because of warming that has already occurred. But beyond that, our choices enormously matter. Keeping global warming as close as possible to 1.5 degrees remains critical. So what should we do about it? First, adaptation is urgent, but unfortunately it is seriously underfunded. Countries need better sea level monitoring, stronger data, science, early warning systems. Developing countries alone need 310 to $365 billion a year for adaptation. And they are getting last year, but in 2023, $26 billion. So there's a gap of almost 10 times from what they need. The adaptation gap is not a knowledge gap, it's a financing gap. And we must remember adaptation is not the only way to address it. Resilience is also critical. And that brings me to my final point, and that is We must move from reacting to anticipating. And report calls for stronger science and data, integrated planning, greater investment in resilience, action on displacement and loss. Actually, people are already being displaced in Fiji, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands. We need to stop asking only what happens after the next flood. The objective must be to reduce the avoidable, not simply respond to the inevitable. And that is the core message of this report. The sea level is rising, our resilience, our financing, and our ambition must rise faster. I just want to flag for you, during this 81st session, there's going to be a political declaration on sea level rise. that will be adopted here, and it reflects a shared commitment by member states to translate science into action. And we are hoping this will be a big push to this question that it is whether our preparedness will rise fast enough to save these people who are at very high risk. Thank you, over to you, Steve.

Thank you so much. It's great to be here with everyone today. Thank you very much for setting the scene for us. I'm here from the UN Office of Legal Affairs to talk about the important international law section of this report. And I think it's a complement to the discussion of the serious impacts of sea level rise that we've already heard. So How is international law relevant here? I think that it provides another way of framing the problems, but also tools potentially for addressing them. So I mean, maybe in terms of framing, as seas rise, states are facing the possibility of substantial loss of territory. We've already heard about the 0.5 meter that's already locked in, and in some cases, even complete submergence, right? In terms of other areas of international law, states also measure their maritime zones. From the coastline, yet the coastlines are moving. So what does this mean for States and and also for the people who are affected? I think this report from a legal perspective is quite interesting because it it hits on three key areas. The first one is the report is is quite clear that there is a presumption of continued statehood for countries that are facing land territory changes due to sea level rise. So even countries that might become submerged at some point. This is essential because the loss of the physical territory could raise questions about nationality. We need to avoid the loss of nationality. That's clearly pointed out in the report. And we need to enable peoples to exercise their right to self-determination. So that's one area. A second kind of area of international law in this report is the need to maintain the established maritime zones in the face of the physical change that sea level rise brings. So those zones, as I mentioned, are measured from the coastline, the waterline. If the waterline changes, what are the legal implications of that? This report really places an emphasis on the maintenance of the zones and legal certainty. And then the third legal issue has to do with the protection of persons who are affected by sea level rise, displacement, loss of home and livelihood. and the enjoyment of their fundamental human rights. So this report calls for legal solutions, policy measures, as well as more international cooperation to address the protection of persons. And that's an important human rights question as well. So as I mentioned, the idea here is that Despite the changes that can be brought about by this phenomenon, that are changes that are very disturbing and are really some of the core challenges of our time, the values of legal stability, predictability, legal certainty should be at the core of what the international community does, not only because it's fundamentally important for the states involved, but also for the people involved, not only now, but well into the future. Maybe I'll just end by highlighting an important area which has to do with capacity building, technical assistance to help advance legal clarity, to help strengthen governance. Here in the Office of Legal Affairs, we work on helping states deposit their baselines, deposit their outer limits of their maritime zones and boundaries. in line with the convention on the law of the sea. So that's one example of how the UN is really practically speaking advising states in dealing with some of the implications of these phenomenon. We are of course happy to help all of our colleagues across the UN as they continue to work to address this serious problem. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll now go to Bill Hare. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Hare. If you want to say a few words or also tell us where you're joining us from.

Thank you. Hello everyone. I'm joining you actually from Perth, Western Australia, where I'm actually on my way to the least developed country ministerial meeting in East Timor starting in a day or so. Now I've got a few slides. Being a scientist, I couldn't help it. So I think Esther's gonna put them up there. I've got a message I'm gonna go through in about four minutes or so. Esther, I'm hoping you can get my slides up. Yeah, so the first message, I think, from the science is that sea level rise is accelerating. This is very clear, and it's caused by global warming. Second slide shows you that sea level rise is really accelerating towards over 60 centimeters sea level rise by 2100. These numbers are in the Secretary General's report. But this shows that there's a very serious challenge. We cannot really slow this down very much, even with a lot of mitigation. I'm gonna go into the opportunities for that in a minute. The next slide shows why this is happening. Why is sea level rise accelerating? And it's because our current policy situation globally, this is the picture from the Global Action Tracker, countries current policies, adding sufficient emissions to warm the world towards 2.6 degrees of warming by 2100. And that's driving around 60 centimeters of sea level rise. So if we go to the next slide, hopefully, the next substandard slide, we're also seeing a really big increase in observed impacts. I'm just gonna give you a couple of examples, but human-driven emissions, that is, we've attributed, the scientific community's attributed, emissions to the increased frequency, the quadrupling of the frequency of extreme sea level events over the last century. Coastal flooding has happened much more often and leading to an increase, a rapidly increase in adaptation expenditure. The next slide also relates to the issue of migration and displacement. Since about 1992, Human settlements have been observed moving quite quickly away from the majority of the world's coastlines, subnational regions, and so on. This is a relatively new phenomenon, and it's driven also by global warming. Countries most affected include the small island developing states, many least developed countries, where I'm going to that strategy meeting in East Timor in a day or so. The losses of forced migration go beyond the human and economic cost to culture, values, tradition, and the legal jeopardy is just referred to. If we can go to the next substantive slide, great. The impacts in the Pacific are really quite serious. I'm raising the Pacific now because Pacific Island Forum is on in Palau now, and this report is officially released there today. and I've worked a lot in the Pacific. Regional sea level rise in the Pacific is higher than the global average for reasons I won't go into, but this exacerbates the country's vulnerability in that region. An example would be for an atoll island like Tuvalu, projections indicate the current policy emissions could see up to 72 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100 compared to about 60 globally. The only way we can limit this is through mitigation, that is through reducing emissions sufficiently to slow sea level rise. And I'm just turning towards the urgency of action on slide 11. The importance of the Paris Agreement's 1.5 degree limit has been alluded to in comments from my colleagues earlier, but it's emerging from the scientific community that limiting warming close to 1.5 degrees, the limit in the Paris Agreement, won't actually stop sea level rise. Sea level rise will continue accelerating, looking towards several meters of sea level rise over the next two centuries. The only way we can actually avoid this outcome is by peaking warming as close as possible to 1.5 degrees, getting it back below 1.5 degrees by 2100. In other words, very urgent emission reductions are needed in the next decades. Now, it turns out that despite the terrible situation we're in on emissions, there's a lot we can do. If you go to the next, I think, and last substantive slide, recent work that we've done, which is consistent with other published emission pathways, show that we can actually peak warming close to about 1.7 degrees. Originally, when the Paris Agreement was adopted, this would have been about 1.5 degrees, but the inaction of the last decade or so has meant that we can't do that anymore. But the blue curve here shows the peaking of the temperature that could be paused if we reduce emissions fast enough, essentially net zero CO2 emissions by mid-century, very fast transition away from fossil fuels. I'm afraid it's emissions pathways like this that are needed, a rapid phase out of fossil fuel, a rapid reduction in greenhouse gases is the only way we're going to actually slow the rate of sea level rise and ultimately limit to a meter or less. If we continue on the present pathway, we're looking at multiple meters of sea level rise over the next few centuries and the loss of very large areas of coastline and the populations that go with them. Thank you, back to you.

Thank you very much and thank you for staying up so late for us. We'll go straight to questions, Edie.

Thank you very much on behalf of the United Nations correspondents. Association for doing this briefing. My name is Edith Lederer from the Associated Press. I think I have a follow up question for everybody. Assistant Secretary General Hanif, you talked about serious underfunding. What are you talking about in terms of dollar amounts and what could that amount of money actually do to mitigate sea level rises? And Mr. Hill, on the law issue, I assume that you were talking about the prospect of or the possibility of one of the Pacific Islands becoming submerged. If those people were forced to move to another island or another country, what would happen to their nationality and the nationality of their children. And Dr. Herr, on the issue of trying to mitigate sea level rise, you sound very pessimistic. Is there really any possibility of stopping this inevitable increase in the next 20, 30, 40 years. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take them in order they were sent out. So, Navid, please.

We cannot separate the issue of sea level rise from climate change because that is a major cause of melting of glaciers and the heat this oceans have to absorb. So, I'm talking about adaptation first and then mitigation. Mitigation also means renewables, eventually phasing out fossil fuels and energy efficiency. All of these measures are extremely important if we want to avoid, I think on 1.5 degrees centigrade we're already there, if we want to avoid the 2.6 degrees centigrade scenario, which is a catastrophe for all of us. On the numbers, for adaptation only developing countries need 310 to $365 billion a year. And as of now, we're getting only $26 billion in adaptation on climate finance itself, which includes mitigation in a massive way. And I want to acknowledge the work that multilateral developments have done and the global climate green fund is doing, but they are way below what we need in terms of investment. And then let's not forget loss and damages. It's also a big chunk which is required by developing countries to deal with the ravages of climate change. And you have seen what is happening. I'm not saying it's exclusively because of that, the destruction in Nepal and we are seeing in many other parts of the world. Climate change is contributing to this. So in terms of investment, billions of dollars on for adaptation, billions of dollars on climate change and the figures we have floated many times. The gap is actually increasing, not shrinking. So what are the ideas in this recommendation that we have made in the report? There are 18 recommendations. The Department of Economic and Social Affairs has done some analysis, of course, with the UN system. The development banks and governments need to, first of all, change regulations, deploy instruments on innovative investment instruments, which includes catastrophe bonds and other bonds which will generate investments in these areas. Third, guarantees to private sector. So the investment moves in areas, especially in infrastructure and energy infrastructure, it is badly needed. So regulatory measures guarantees public finance to support private finance moving in, in a massive way, and also Development finance is shrinking. We need to think of mobilizing other sources of finance. And small, but it has great potential is philanthropy. We need to bring them in to move private capital. Thank you.

The issue of the submersions, thank you for your question. You know, it can affect many places in the world and many regions. And it's not just the complete submergence, but it could be the territory made inhabitable or otherwise by sea level rise. And so that's why I think the report's so important because it really provides a strong support for the idea that regardless of what happens to the physical territory, the statehood continues. And that is the principle from which then flows exactly your question about nationality because that's they comes from there. And so why is it important to say that there's this presumption in favor of the continuity of statehood? It's well, it's not just because of the state itself, it's because of the people. And not only the people themselves who, you know, would have to, as you say, move or go somewhere else, but also future generations. So I'm glad that the report focuses on that. It's a it's a huge issue. The report also talks about exactly the mechanisms of mobility, displacement, all the kind of frameworks that come into play when people have to move. But I think the idea is clear. People shouldn't lose their nationality. They shouldn't lose that element of their identity because of this phenomenon.

Thank you. Mr. Hair.

Yeah, thanks for the question. Look, the sea level rise issue is a diabolical one. It's irreversible. The scientific community's known that for a long time. So that means that even if we can get onto one and a half degree pathway, which we have to do for all the reasons that have been mentioned, we'll still have 40, 45 centimetres of sea level rise this century. The real benefit of the action that will be undertaken in the next decades to get onto one and a half degree, a Paris aligned pathway, occurs in the centuries following. So if we end up with two and a half degrees warming this century, then it's very likely we would have crossed tipping points for the West Antarctic ice sheet, parts of the East Antarctic even, maybe even Greenland that would lead to many meters of sea level rise in the next few centuries. By tipping point, I mean we would have crossed a point of warming and changes in these ice sheets that could no longer be reversed no matter how much we cool the planet. So the real benefit of action now is to save maybe 10, 20 centimeters of sea level rise this century, but many meters in the long term, which would mean, if that happens, that would mean the extinction of many small island states, but also drastic, catastrophic reshaping of coastlines around the world affecting many hundreds of millions of people.

Thank you. Namo.

Thank you so much for this briefing. This is Namo Abdullah with Rudaw. I have just one question for you, sir, about the legality. You mentioned something very interesting. You said regardless of what happens to the physical territory, the statehood continues. Are you saying a state with no land can still be a state? And if the answer is yes, doesn't that mean the century old definition of territorial nation states is dead, but we haven't admitted it yet? Thank you.

It's a great question. No, thank you so much. I mean, this issue was really taken up, in fact, by the International Court of Justice, which itself, as you say, there's some traditional definitions of statehood. And let me just quote the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion, which was actually requested by the General Assembly. It said, and I quote, "Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood." And then the report that we've been talking about today goes on and talks a little bit like I was saying to Edie about the practical elements of it. So I think from that, I wouldn't necessarily conclude that the international law about statehood is dead. What I would conclude is actually that it's very vibrant in the fact that the international law that we talk about, the elements of statehood, it's actually capable of addressing problems, problems that are either, unfortunately, have been thrust upon us. So yeah, but I think this, I appreciate your question, thank you very much.

Thank you, Dulce.

I just wanted to ask you which countries in the Pacific are sinking the fastest and why? Is it because they're already the lowest lying countries or just because of where they're situated in the Pacific? Thanks.

Thank you. The report names Fiji, Vanuatu and Solomon. They're already displacement happening. And my colleague mentioned the sea level rise in the Pacific is much faster than the rest of the world. So these are the two factors which are contributing to-- but let's not forget, it's not just small island developing states. Even major coastal cities-- and the report mentions those-- Mumbai, Kolkata, Dhaka, even Miami, they are all at risk. Even in the three cities I mentioned, South Asia, 14 million people will be displaced the way they are losing their coastline. So it's a challenge, but coastal cities are also very vulnerable. Guangzhou in China is also vulnerable. So we need to look at the picture for all parts of the world, especially coastal. But again, development challenge is not just coastal. That's what the report says, please treat sea level rise as a systemic threat. for your health, food security, your human rights, culture. You lose your ancestral land, you lose your identity. So that's why this issue requires a very comprehensive approach by governments to make it a part of their planning process.

You want to add something on the Pacific Islands?

Well, I could just add something a bit. Look, I think Specifically about the Pacific Islands, it's the atoll islands that are most vulnerable. Palau, for example, is an atoll island, Tuvalu, Fiji, not Fiji, Kiribati. These are the ones that are most likely to suffer at the least non-habitability by mid-century unless we can slow our sea levels down. The The threat to human development will happen long before countries or regions are inundated. Because sea level rise, my colleague just pointed out, is a systemic risk to development. So once you start to get disasters happening, super El Nino is coming along, maybe add 25 centimeters of sea level rise surge for a few years. the will to stay in places begins to decline. People want to start leaving because they're suffering food, they're suffering disease, they're suffering loss of infrastructure. So these challenges are gonna happen a lot faster than simply the physical inundation of land. And that's one of the reasons why the recommendations in the Secretary-General's report are so important. There's quite a lot of them, I think there's 18 or so, they're all very important, they're interlinked, and why they need to be coupled together and why countries need to move both on adaptation, both on loss and damage, and also on mitigation, reducing emissions simultaneously. There's not an option of doing one or the other. All of these tracks need to be moved forward at the same rate.

Thank you. Thank you very much for the briefing. This is, my name is Muna Outoul, I'm with Al-Quds Al-Arabi. My question is for you, Mr. Hill, building on Ms. Eddie's question and Namos, I'm wondering if we can just please get more clarity on the macro level, if countries eventually lose their land or become submerged, Does losing physical territory mean a country could lose its status under international law? And second question, does this ongoing legal work inform the discussions ahead of COP31? And thank you so much.

Thanks so much for your question and for building on the other questions. Yeah, well, that's exactly what the report is trying to, you know, cast a light on. And I think that that is also going to be an element of the high level event that will happen in September, really focusing on this idea that there should be what they call the presumption of continuity of statehood. And because that has so many secondary effects, right? You're talking about would a state lose its status? I mean, we were before with Edie talking about the nationality of the people. I mean, there's so many implications of that. So that to me is the important part from a macro perspective of not only the Secretary General's report, but also all of the different considerations of this by the International Court of Justice, by the International Law Commission, and I suspect it'll be discussed by states in the high level event. I also think that that's underpinning, you know, all the work that's going on in the international community, including things like COP31. So, you know, stay tuned for September, I would say, have a look at the language that the states have agreed. And, you know, I think people should keep on thinking about these issues because they're very important. Thank you.

Thank you. The last question will be online from Iftikar Ali. Iftikar, go ahead.

Thank you, Steph. My question is for Mr. Hanif. Sir, how much, I mean, roughly, by percentage, is the rapid melting of glaciers contributing to the rise of sea levels?

Thank you. I think this is a question which I am not in a position to answer. I think my colleague in the Pacific may be better placed, but I just want to mention, look at the scenario, again, let me also be very clear, these are all scenarios. We do not know how eventually things will unfold, but just look at South Asia, glaciers and maybe, I think you know, it's considered as the third pole in the world. We have North Pole, South Pole and South Asia because of The concentration of glaciers is the third pole in the world. The scenarios indicate, and I hope they don't come to be true, South Asia in the next 15 to 20 years is flooding. Glaciers are melting and then drought. Water will disappear. Crops, food security, growing population, they have massive risks coming their way. So I don't have the specific answer, but Mr. Eftekhari, we can find out and come back to you, but glaciers are melting at a much faster speed than we anticipated, and the scenarios indicate even more serious changes coming their way in South Asia. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Hare. Thank you for participating. Navid, Stephen, thank you. And as a reminder, there will be a meeting during the high-level week focused on sea level rise. Thank you very much.

Thank you.