CLIMATE FINANCE, THE STALEMATE CONTINUES
The interim climate negotiations will close on Thursday and, as expected, the central issue has been climate finance. A thorny but increasingly urgent issue, which will also dominate the scene at COP29, the next UN Climate Conference in November in Baku, Azerbaijan.
In the area of climate finance, a key point that has been much discussed here in Bonn is that of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the new global target for funds to be allocated by richer countries to support poorer ones in coping with the climate crisis and its impacts.
A new target: the previous one was identified at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, when countries promised to reach USD 100 billion per year by 2020. During COP21 – the one that led to the historic Paris Agreement in 2015 – it was then decided to keep the same target until 2025 and set another one for the following years.
The target of 100 billion per year was only reached in 2022 and today we know that, unfortunately, this figure is not enough to give concrete support to the countries that need it most. Not even close.
Where do we stand
The interim negotiations in Bonn should conclude with the drafting of a draft text that will provide the basis for restarting the discussion at COP29: the presidency of the Azerbaijani summit has already promised that we will have a new climate finance target in November, but in reality, at least for now, the road appears to be all uphill.
So far, only a draft text has been drawn up, which is still very much inadequate, and which basically merely restates a whole series of considerations expressed over the past year by the main negotiating groups.
A text that is considered wholly inadequate by the delegations working on the issue, and which on Tuesday came together again in what was supposed to be the last meeting devoted to the NCQG before COP29. The meeting, which lasted two hours, ended with the confirmation of the need for further work on the text.
During the meeting, the delegations of the poorest countries again emphasized how urgent it is to make concrete progress on climate action, but also how high the costs are. It is now clear that it is not enough to allocate 100 billion dollars a year – a figure we have struggled so hard to achieve: the poorest and most vulnerable countries need much, much more money to tackle the climate crisis.
Estimates by the most authoritative institutions all speak of sums in the order of trillions of dollars annually (trillions). For example, the First Report on the Determination of Needs of the Standing Committee on Finance, produced in 2021, showed that nearly $6 trillion is needed to implement the climate action plans of developing countries by 2030, and this does not fully cover the costs of adaptation.
Among the speeches we heard on Tuesday was from the delegation of Pakistan, whose spokesperson pointed out that the most vulnerable countries are already incurring extremely high expenses to cope with the climate crisis and its catastrophic effects. ‘To continue to cooperate, we need a balanced NCQG,’ the delegate warned. ‘If the funding promised with the Convention (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, ed.) and the Paris Agreement is not available, why should we join the Convention?’
Straight to the point, the Marshall Islands delegate also pointed out the direct impact of climate finance on people’s lives. International support will help his country to implement its adaptation plan, for example: ‘literally a matter of survival’.
In general, the need for a target that is dynamic, transparent, and regularly reviewed was emphasized during the discussion we observed on Tuesday in Bonn. Wealthier countries were urged to fulfill their commitments to support the necessary measures to combat climate change by reducing emissions (mitigation), preparing for the now unavoidable effects (adaptation), and compensating poorer nations for the loss and damage incurred (loss and damage).
For the time being, however, there have been no concrete and agreed proposals on the timeframe to be given and the figures to be allocated, the now central ‘quantum’ – we talked about it here
This stalemate on the issue of climate finance is an increasingly serious problem not only because of the support, just and necessary, that must be given to developing countries by the richer ones with the greatest responsibility in terms of emissions. The uncertainty and tensions prevailing in this area are in fact also heavily influencing negotiations on other aspects of the climate crisis, first and foremost that of mitigation: let us take stock here.