A delegate reacts during the final negotiations that led to a much-criticized climate finance deal. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth
By Joyce Chimbi
BAKU, Nov 24 2024 – They say it is taboo to talk about money. But this is exactly what developing countries came for: to haggle and push for the climate finance deal of a lifetime, as the climate crisis is, for them, a matter of life and death. Wealthy nations also came for their own deal of a lifetime—to hoist the climate finance burden on the private sector as they take the bare minimum financial responsibility.
A finance COP was always going to be difficult as, although they can pay, they simply will not pay. Mere hours before the expected final text of the “Host Country” Agreement to be signed between the Government of Azerbaijan and the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, the COP29 presidency released a draft text proposing that the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance would be USD 250 billion.
Developing world wanted USD 1.3 trillion. The offer sparked outrage from the Global South, silent Baku protests, and threats of boycott as “no deal was better than a bad deal.”
In the pandemonium, Brazil too warned there would be no deal unless COP29 raised the climate finance target. What followed were accusations and counter-accusations as negotiations overran into the wee hours of Sunday morning when the COP29 Presidency finally announced a deal of USD 300 billion.
“This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country,” said Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change. “But like any insurance policy, it only works if premiums are paid in full and on time. Promises must be kept to protect billions of lives.”
One critic warned that the rich countries staged a ‘great escape’ at COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth
The new deal triples public finance to developing countries, from the previous goal of USD 100 billion annually to USD 300 billion annually by 2035, and secures efforts of all actors to work together to scale up finance to developing countries, from public and private sources, to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.
Responding to the outcome of the COP29 climate summit, Mohamed Adow, director of climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa, said COP29 has been “a disaster for the developing world. It is a betrayal of both people and planet by wealthy countries that claim to take climate change seriously. Rich countries have promised to “mobilise” some funds in the future, rather than provide them now.”
“The cheque is in the mail. But lives and livelihoods in vulnerable countries are being lost now. At this ‘Finance COP’ not a single dollar of real climate finance has been provided right now. Not only did the global north impose a low-ball finance figure, it comes into force 11 years from now. This deal is too little, too late.”
Adow said the rich world staged “a great escape in Baku. With no real money on the table and vague and unaccountable promises of funds to be mobilised, they are trying to shirk their climate finance obligations. Leaving the world without the resources needed to avert climate catastrophe. Poor countries needed to see clear, grant-based climate finance that would boost their ability to deal with the impacts of the climate crisis and accelerate their decarbonisation efforts. But that was sorely lacking.”
Fadhel Kaboub, a member of the Independent Expert Group on Just Transition and Development, says the USD 1.3 trillion per year that the Global South asked for is meant to be a modest and reasonable good faith downpayment towards real climate action by the Global North. He said, “In the Global South, climate finance needs to come in the form of grants, not loans and further economic entrapment, cancellation of all climate-related debts, and transfer and sharing of life-saving technologies to manufacture and deploy renewables, clean cooking, clean transportation, and the climate resilience and adaptation infrastructure that we need.”
Energies were low on the final official day of negotiations; the vibrant conversations that filled the air and purposeful walks from plenary to pavilions and back were long gone. The wait did not pay off. Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, said that while developed nations continue to “dodge their responsibilities, our communities are drowning, starving, and losing their homes to a crisis they didn’t create.”
The developing world were losers in the finance deal at COP29, critics say. One critic warned that the rich countries staged a ‘great escape’ at COP29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth
COP29 brought together nearly 200 countries. The most debated issues in Baku were around the NCQG, the Global Goal on Adaptation, and the Just Transition Work Programme. In the end, other highlights included the agreement on how carbon markets will operate under the Paris Agreement, making country-to-country trading and a carbon crediting mechanism fully operational.
On transparent climate reporting, Parties agreed to build a stronger evidence base to strengthen climate policies over time, helping to identify financing needs and opportunities. The COP decision on matters relating to the least developed countries (LDCs) contains a provision for the establishment of a support program for the implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for the LDCs.
COP29 took a decisive step forward to elevate the voices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in climate action, adopting the Baku Workplan and renewing the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP).
Countries agreed a decision on gender and climate change, extending the enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender and Climate Change for another 10 years, reaffirming the importance of gender equality and advancing gender mainstreaming throughout the convention. They also agreed to develop a new gender action plan for adoption at COP30, which will set the direction for concrete implementation.
“No country got everything they wanted, and we leave Baku with a mountain of work to do,” said Stiell. “The many other issues we need to progress may not be headlines, but they are lifelines for billions of people. So, this is no time for victory laps; we need to set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to Belem.
IPS UN Bureau Report
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
South African Rand Exchange Rate