BAKU TO BELÉM ROADMAP: A STARTING POINT OR A MISSED OPPORTUNITY?

COP29 ended with a promise from developed countries to reach the target of $1.3 trillion per year in climate finance for developing countries by 2035. The basis for this commitment is a roadmap, called “From Baku to Belém”, which, under the leadership of the COP29 and COP30 presidencies, will lead to the creation of a report. Making it work is a test of credibility, warned the UNFCCC Secretary General.

And it is precisely credibility that developed countries need, because finance, despite the agreement reached in Baku, is far from being a closed issue for developing countries. This is demonstrated by the impasse that occurred over the inclusion of an item on the implementation of Article 9.1 of Paris on the agenda. It is also evident in the discussions we are seeing at other negotiating tables, from mitigation to adaptation to just transition. In the case of the discussions on the Baku to Belém roadmap, the feeling is that the countries considered to be developing want to lay the foundations for a new climate finance agreement, rather than interact significantly in the roadmap – which could nevertheless be an effective tool for finding at least some of the necessary resources. But let’s take a step back.

The roadmap was launched in February with a request from the presidencies for input from states, organisations and other entities on their expectations for the process, issues to be addressed within it, national experiences, any best practices and lessons learned, or multilateral initiatives to be included. So far, 116 contributions have been received, of which only 20 came from Parties to the UNFCCC process. The presidencies also organised open consultations, two of which were held here in Bonn during the first week of the mid-term negotiations.

Both the input to the roadmap and the consultations we followed in person show the failure of the NCQG to bridge the differences between the Parties. The visions for the process, and more generally for the future of the climate finance discourse, are so different that the presidencies have identified only three common elements in the submissions received: the need for the roadmap to be geared towards defining concrete solutions, involving a large number of different actors and based on the principle of national sovereignty.

In particular, developing countries see the roadmap as fertile ground for advancing negotiating points that have not been included in the new global climate finance target. According to the G77+China, the roadmap should:

• focus not only on adaptation and mitigation, as outlined by the NCQG, but also on loss and damage;
• ensure that countries take the lead in achieving the $300 billion per year target;
• also explore the additional role that developed countries must play in the context of Article 9.1, which, as we explained here, is not explicitly mentioned in the NCQG.

On this last point, it became clear in Bonn that the absence of any mention of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement was used as a battering ram to reopen the debate on climate finance. As specified in the Indian submission, developing countries believe that the NCQG only implements Articles 9.2 and 9.3 of the Paris Agreement, leaving out 9.1, which therefore remains to be implemented. This has given rise to the idea that the roadmap should highlight the legal obligations of developed countries, while also exploring how Article 9.1 can be implemented to mobilise 1.3 trillion per year. Other points included in the submissions concern issues such as the need to increase concessional finance and public finance, eliminate barriers to access, and increase the balance between mitigation and adaptation.

For developed countries, however, the roadmap is a consultation and not an opportunity to reopen the Baku agreements. They consider the NCQG a historic milestone that opens the door to a new era of climate finance. They emphasise their willingness to provide financial resources, but argue that the necessary figures can only be achieved by involving all stakeholders. For this reason, they argue that the roadmap should focus on concrete actions to increase private finance, including by connecting different actors, processes and initiatives. It is therefore essential to remove barriers and implement enablers for investment in developing countries.

The outcome of the roadmap will be summarised in a report, presented in draft form on 8 September and in final form at COP30. Only then will it be clear which vision will be highlighted and which solutions will be identified. In any case, this week of negotiations has clearly shown that the most important thing is to achieve the promised results within the set timeframe. Many countries’ patience has run out; it is time to implement.

Article by Claudia Concaro, Italian Climate Network delegate at the SB62 negotiations in Bonn.

Cover image: photo by Claudia Concaro.