Hopes by the Group of 77 (G77) countries and their allies of getting $1.3 trillion for climate action still hang in balance at the ongoing COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
From the beginning of the conference last week, G77 and other developing nations, struggling with the severe impacts of climate change, have been eagerly expecting the wealthy nations to accept their trillion demand.
However, on Friday, their anticipation fuse was plugged as the revised text returned with just $250 billion (Aprx. Ugx924,314,195,000,000) which is four times less the expected amount.
Despite being the main polluters of the environment, the developed countries also agreed to a new target of $250 billion per year by 2035 for climate action.
This has not left the Group of 77 (G77), African Group of Climate Change Negotiators (AGN), and Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) infuriated calling ‘a Joke’ and bully tactic.
Most developing countries such as Uganda, depend largely on external funding to address climate change and have recently realised that this source of financing (wealth nations) is often unreliable.
When asked about the proposed $250 billion offer, Adonia Ayebare, the Chairman of G77+China, Ali Muhamed, the lead Negotiator for AGN, and Diego Pacheco Balanza, Director General of Living Well and Foreign Policy of Bolivia, said the amount was ‘a joke’ and they are still pushing for a realistic figure of $1.3 trillion to be granted in the final text.
Prolonged discussion
Although the negotiations to determine the final decision on climate finance were scheduled to close on Friday, they were compelled to enter another day (Saturday)of discussion with all involved parties scratching their heads to come up with a favourable decision.
An official statement circulating among observers and delegates indicates that the COP29 Presidency is undertaking broad consultations throughout Friday night.
“We will then issue final texts, and Parties will be given sufficient time to review final texts before the closing plenaries,” it states.
Group and Party focal points are asked to remain available and contactable for further consultation.
The closing plenaries of the COP, CMP, and CMA will be convened on Saturday, November 23, 2024, time to be confirmed but not before 10 am.
What Other Sources Say?
According to Mohamed Adow, a climate justice advocate and director of Power Shift Africa, an energy and climate think-tank, reacted to the new NCQG text, calling the $250 billion provided “a slap in the face” of developing countries.
Adow says Africa and other developing countries are “offended” by the COP29 presidency, noting that an “ambitious climate finance outcome” is “not the ballgame this Baku COP presidency is playing.
“Our expectations were low, but this is a slap in the face. No developing country will fall for this. What trick is the presidency trying to pull? They’ve already disappointed everyone, but they have now angered and offended the developing world,” Adow explains.
He further explains that the figure of $250 billion is about 20% of what developing countries have asked for.
“Are we settling for a fifth of the ambition needed to tackle the climate crisis? It seems that building an ambitious climate finance outcome in Baku is not the ballgame this presidency is playing,’’ he states.
“We need developed countries to grab the bull by the horns and put forward a number that reflects the actual needs of developing countries. Rich countries need to bypass this president and negotiate eye to eye with developing countries,” he adds.
Avinash Persaud, the Special Advisor on Climate Change to the President of the Inter-American Development Bank says there is no deal to come out of Baku that will not leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
“But we are within sight of a landing zone for the first time all year. The recognition of needs on the text is vital to give integrity to the system, but the $250bn commitment to be led by developed countries is short given adaptation needs alone, and reliance on the hope and prayer of cross-border private sector flows that have so far been negligible will be a point of contention.”
Friederike Roder, Vice President of Global Policy and Advocacy, at Global Citizen, says the $250 billion target is not enough, not big enough, not fast enough, and not good enough.
While the world is burning, he adds, they cannot wait another 11 years for peanuts while giving the impression of putting the fossil fuel transition on hold. The worst is that money is there and proposals are on the table that would allow to scale of grant financing while making polluters pay.
“A minimum tax of 2% on 3,000 billionaires would be sufficient to raise $250bn per year in the form of grants – better than what the
the text offers as the $250bn target isn’t even clearly defined,” he said.
Aarti Khosla, Director, Climate Trends The last leg of negotiations has become very hard yards. As the obligations of the developed nations become exposed, their intentions are also getting exposed.
The multilateral process is meant to deliver faith and credibility we are far from both. The latest text changes goal posts as it calls on all countries developed and developing, to contribute towards climate finance.
It offers no core amount, which is necessary, not just to fight climate change, but to deliver on the legal obligations of the developed world. Setting a trend of acting in bad faith and cornering developing nations is dangerous. Watering down ambition on all fronts is a setback to the process itself but also to what multilateralism can yield.”
Sehr Raheja, Program Officer, Climate Change, Centre for Science and Environment says the text brought forth the much-awaited figure for a quantum, but an abysmally low provision figure of 250 billion.
According to Raheja, it asks for “all actors to work together” to scale up to $1.3 trillion, rather than the obligation of developed countries to ensure the same.
The latest text offers no thematic sub-goals of mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage as part of the structure of the goal, and neither is there any ‘upward revision’ of quantum to reflect the evolving needs of developing countries.
“This is a heavily watered down text, far from what is needed to call this COP a success,” he stresses.
Li Shuo, Director of China Climate Hub Asia Society, states that the solution to the donor base issue is that countries like China will not be responsible for the 250 billion, but could be counted towards the delivery of that figure.
“This is classic strategic ambiguity, but towards the direction of China playing a more prominent role in helping developing countries,” he says.
Dr. Rachel Cleetus, Policy Director for the Climate and Energy Program, Union of Concerned Scientists says that with a paltry climate finance offer of $250 billion annually, and a deadline to deliver as late as 2035, richer nations including E.U. countries and the United States are dangerously close to betraying the Paris Agreement.”
According to Cleetus, this is nowhere near the robust and desperately needed funding lower-income nations deserve to combat climate change.
“The central demand coming into COP29 was for a strong, science-aligned climate finance commitment, which this appalling text utterly fails to provide,” she adds.
Kaveh Guilanpour, Vice President for International Strategies at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, was quoted as saying, ” The NCQG text is a big step towards consensus being possible while the Mitigation Work Programme is far too weak for many countries. The UAE Dialogue text still has options. Ultimately, the issue is that while the NCQG text is much closer to a landing zone, to many countries (developed and developing), the overall package will not be viewed as balanced.”
Teresa Anderson, the Global Lead on Climate Justice at ActionAid International, says this new text’s offer is heartless.
She says the developed countries most responsible for causing climate destruction have turned their backs on climate-hit nations. The document offers no guarantees of real grant-based finance to those on the front lines.
“Instead of holding the developed countries that caused the climate crisis accountable, it shifts the burden onto developing countries and the private sector. Essentially, this draft text says ‘Sorry, you’re on your own,’ to those on the frostiness.
According to Anderson, the Global South needs to keep up the fight because the whole planet needs them to stand up for the trillions of dollars in grants each year needed to keep the planet safe.
This story was produced as part of the 2024 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organised by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.
