Snap verdict – Damian Carrington
More from Guardian environment editor Damian Carrington.
The new text on the all-important finance target “calls for” $1.3tn by 2035 – that’s what developing countries asked for – but what kind of finance remains important – grants, loans, private?
It “decides” on $250bn for developing countries by 2035 – that’s in the ballpark of the figures that have been frequently mentioned for the “core” funding, though $300bn was at the top end. This might be the start of a haggle.
It “invites developing country parties to make additional contributions” – nations like China and Saudi Arabia will like that – they are still officially developing countries in UN climate talks and very strongly reject any calls to be obliged to contribute.
But this it just the latest iteration of the text – let’s see what countries make of it.
Key events
“Unacceptable and inadequate”- African Group of Negotiators
My colleague Dharna Noor has this from Amb Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Special Envoy for chair of the African Group of Negotiators.
Like many others he is furious about the latest text describing it as “totally unacceptable and inadequate.”
On the New Collective Quantified Goal text, he says:
“The proposed target to mobilise $250 billion per year by 2035 is totally unacceptable and inadequate to delivering the Paris Agreement. The Adaptation Gap Report alone says the adaptation needs are $400 billion; $250 billion will lead to unacceptable loss of life in Africa and around the world, and imperils the future of our world. Moreover, it is no longer developed countries who are responsible under this formulation. It is rendered as a target for which all countries are responsible and where developed countries are taking the lead. This is unacceptable.”
On the Global Goal on Adaptation text, he says:
“The African Group of Negotiators reiterates the importance of prioritising adaptation and calls for an explicit decision for the technical and expert teams to finalise the work on the indicators six weeks prior to SB62. We believe that the finalisation of indicators is a party- driven process, and as such parties must be given enough time to consider the work and further the development of indicators. Furthermore, we are not happy with the inclusion of transformation adaptation in the text as parties did not have adequate time to engage on the concept. We are also extremely disappointed that the outcome does not provide a clear guidance on the inclusion of the indicators to track the means of implementation for the adaptation. We call for clear guidance for the inclusion of the Means of Implementation in the final text.”
On the Just Transition Work Programme text, he says:
“The Just Transition text is unacceptable and lacks balance between domestic and international dimensions of just transitions. Just transition is about fairness, international cooperation, shared prosperity and access to economic opportunities, as well as addressing challenges for the transitions. The Baku decision should effectively respond to the Dubai mandate and scope of just transitions.”
A joint statement by Amar Bhattacharya, Vera Songwe and Nicholas Stern, co-chairs of the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance, recognises that $250bn from developed to developing countries is “too low and not consistent with delivery of the Paris Agreement”.
We welcome publication of the new COP29 Presidency text on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance. It calls on “all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035”. This is consistent with our analysis of the investments and external finance required by developing countries outside China to deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement. The text also calls on developed countries to increase their financial support for developing countries to $250 billion per year by 2035. This figure is too low and not consistent with delivery of the Paris Agreement. Our analysis shows that the NCQG, based on the components that it covers, should commit developed countries to provide at least $300 billion per year by 2030, and $390 billion per year by 2035. We believe that these targets are feasible and will require stepped up direct bilateral finance from developed countries, much higher ambition on the part of the multilateral development banks, and improved private finance mobilisation.
“A genuine attempt” – Australian take on the new text
Adam Morton
The Australian climate change minister, Chris Bowen, has responded to the latest text from the presidency, describing it as a “genuine attempt”.
“But I’m not under illusions that there are going to be some long and tough conversations into the night here,” he told the Guardian. “I think we’re in a genuinely finely balanced situation.”
On the climate finance target, he said: “Any quantum conversation is going to be highly controversial. There has been a strong effort to try to get a quantum that is ambitious and achievable. There is no point in the developed world signing on to a quantum that they just don’t believe they can deliver, so that will be a key issue over coming hours.”
Speaking on behalf of the Umbrella Group of wealthy countries in the plenary on Thursday, Bowen was sharply critical of the lack of an explicit reference to the agreement in Dubai that the world needs to triple renewable energy by 2030 and transition away from fossil fuels.
He noted there had been changes on this in the latest text. It now says the summit “reaffirms the outcomes of the first global stocktake” – that is, what was agreed last year.
“Obviously I’m pleased that there is no explicit backsliding from the Dubai consensus. There are ongoing references to the work of that. I always like to have these things loud and explicit but that will be an ongoing conversation over the course of the evening,” he said.
Bowen did not speculate on when Cop29 might finish. He is scheduled to leave tomorrow night to be in the Australian parliament from Monday for the release of a national climate statement next week.
“Outrageous, evil and remorseless” – Panama’s view on text
Damian Carrington
Reaction to the latest Cop29 negotiating texts from countries is starting to arrive. Panama’s lead negotiator Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, who gave a barnstorming speech yesterday, is absolutely furious:”The $250bn offered by developed countries is a spit on the face of vulnerable nations like mine. They offer crumbs while we bear the dead. Outrageous, evil and remorseless.”
It is fair to say the reaction to the new text from civil society groups has been overwhelmingly negative. There are a few more here – some again suggesting developing countries walk away – the key thing now is to hear what countries say. It could be a bruising afternoon.
Mariana Paoli, from Christian Aid, said:
It is baffling that despite everyone knowing all year that this was the ‘finance COP’, rich countries are still refusing to put substantial enough funding pledges on the table. This is irresponsible, immoral and risks condemning both people and planet. Developing countries would be better walking away from the table than signing up to this garbage.
“With hours to go, unless significant changes are made to the text, especially the amount of finance to be provided, developing countries will be left behind. The funding that the global south is fighting for here is a lifeline and will lay the groundwork for climate action over the next decade.
Victor Menotti, US coordinator for the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, told the Guardian:
“The big thing people are looking for is that quantum, the core of public financing, go up from the 100 billion years ago. Now what we’re seeing, 250 billion, is in current dollars about the same amount of money when you consider inflation and all of that. So it’s something between a joke or an insult…. The trillion is a big number. It’s more than the Pentagon budget. But what’s important is the public resources that are going to leverage that money.
Stephen Cornelius, from WWF said:
The climate finance text is completely inadequate. It now has a finance target, but it completely misses the mark. The amount is far too low, and rich countries don’t even commit to delivering all of it. This simply will not be good enough, and I expect there will be fireworks when countries meet later. We need a core of public finance closer to US$1 trillion. There is too much at stake for this process to end in a bad deal that doesn’t deliver the necessary finance. This is an investment in our collective future.
Dr Vaibhav Chaturvedi, senior fellow, Council on Energy, Environment and Water in India said:
The 1.3 trillion USD number is at best a sham. Even the apparent increase in the provision from developed world to developing world of USD 250 Bn USD annually by 2035 is the same as the 100 Bn USD by 2020 if 6% annual average inflation is accounted for. There is no grant or low cost finance component. This is a bad deal for the developing world, irrespective of how it is going to be portrayed by the presidency.
Dharna Noor
In response to the newly released text on climate finance, a senior U.S. official said: “It has been a significant lift over the past decade to meet the prior, smaller goal. $250 billion will require even more ambition and extraordinary reach. This goal will need to be supported by ambitious bilateral action, MDB [multilateral development banks] contributions, and efforts to better mobilize private finance, among other critical factors.”
In 2009, developed countries agreed that by 2020, they would collectively mobilize $100 billion per year to support developing countries’ decarbonization and adaptation plans.
“An absolute embarrassment” – civil society reacts to Cop text
But the reassurances from the Cop presidency have done little to calm the anger of civil society groups.
In response to the latest NCQG text, Laurie van der Burg, Oil Change International global public finance manager, said:
This text is an absolute embarrassment. It’s the equivalent of governments handing the keys to the firetruck to the arsonists. The vague $1.3 trillion investment target is not to be relied on and the $250 billion goal is not debt-free. Previous suggestions to end fossil fuel handouts and make polluters pay have all been axed. This amounts to a cop-out for polluters and allows rich countries to dodge their responsibilities by relying on the private sector and even developing countries to cover the bill, creating a debt-trap for countries most vulnerable to the climate crisis.
“We know rich countries can pay up the trillions they owe to the Global South by ending fossil fuel handouts, taxing the super rich, and changing unfair global financial rules. We need a dramatic change in direction if we want a fighting chance to leave Baku with a finance deal that can support the fair fossil fuel phaseout that we need to avoid breaching 1.5°C.
Namrata Chowdhary, Chief of Public Engagement at 350.org said:
The Global North must stop playing poker with people’s lives and pay their overdue debt. We need real leadership—from wealthy nations and the Presidency—to land this deal. If they can’t deliver, they must step aside, because we will not accept a bad deal that fails to meet the moment.
As the world watches what should be the final day of this year’s climate talks, the agreement we came here for remains elusive. This new climate finance goal is three years in the making, and the global majority remains leaps and bounds ahead of the governments who are continuing to stall and let progress slip away in the name of profits. But we will not be silenced. At COP29, we hold the line in our demand for more climate finance, not this bare minimum offer.
Statement from the COP29 Presidency
A statement from the COP29 Presidency insists the new text is the result of “an extensive and inclusive consultation process.”
Throughout the year, the COP29 Presidency has been pushing for a fair and ambitious new climate finance goal, taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties.
We conducted an extensive and inclusive consultation process that extended into the early hours of the morning.
We gave all groups the opportunity to react to the package of texts we released yesterday morning and we thank them for their constructive engagement.
Taking into account the views expressed during the consultations, and what we heard from Parties at yesterday’s Qurultay, we have now published updated texts.
These texts form a balanced and streamlined package for COP29. The COP29 Presidency urges Parties to study this text intently, to pave the way towards consensus, on the few options remaining.
As a first reflection of Parties indications the New Collective Quantified Goal decision contains a call on all Parties to work together to scale up financing to developing countries for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.
Further, reflecting the submission of developed country parties, it includes a decision to set a goal in extension of the goal of jointly mobilizing USD 100 billion per year, with developed country Parties taking the lead, to USD 250 billion by 2035 for developing country Parties for climate action.
We will further engage with Parties to collectively agree final adjustments to the few outstanding yet important issues.
We will continue to work hard, inclusively and transparently, to press all sides for the highest ambition outcome possible.
Damian Carrington
NGOs are fast out of the blocks in reacting to the latest negotiating texts – as countries pore over them line by line.
John Verdieck, director of international climate policy at The Nature Conservancy, is concerned about whether the text is clear enough about developed countries’ role as the providers of climate finance.
“It’s been a hard-fought week, but this proposed number of at least $1.3tn, with a public floor of $250bn, for climate finance to developing countries shows that negotiators are taking this crisis seriously. Unfortunately, saying that “all actors” have to take responsibility is too ambiguous and could allow wealthy nations to skirt their responsibilities.”
While we wait for countries to react, civil society groups are already giving their verdict – and it is not positive.
This from War on Want
‼️ BREAKING: The new climate finance text has been released at the #COP29 climate talks – and it’s an insult.
$250B from developed countries by 2035 , $1.3T from “all sources”.
This is nowhere near the public, grant-based climate finance the planet and people urgently need. pic.twitter.com/nuLPkuv4f7
— War on Want (@WarOnWant) November 22, 2024
We’re not backing down. We’ll fight all night to ensure this inadequate #ClimateFinance deal is rejected.
Without real finance, there can be no concrete action to cut pollution or achieve a just transition to fairer, greener economies and societies.
— War on Want (@WarOnWant) November 22, 2024
Writing on BlueSky Fadhel Kaboub President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity and senior Advisor with Power Shift Africa said:
Historic polluters offering $250bn by 2035 in poor quality financing (aka economic entrapment & false solutions).
#IsItAJoke
Global South negotiators bravely walk out. No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.
#PayUp
James Murray editor of Business Green
It looks like a compromise agreement that can allow the next phase of negotiations to start, but developing economies will feel like the numbers are massively low-balled. A very punchy plenary awaits.
— James Murray (@James_BG) November 22, 2024
Harjeet Singh, climate activist, Cop veteran and with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, is not happy with the latest text on the all-important climate finance goal:
It is a disgrace that despite full awareness of the devastating climate crises afflicting developing nations and the staggering costs of climate action – amounting to trillions – developed nations have only proposed a meagre $250bn a year.
Trust has been shattered; developing countries must stand firm. Rejecting this is a stand for dignity – no deal is better than a bad deal, especially when it disrespects those bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not create.
“Private finance” included in the draft text
Fiona Harvey
The text – which came as much of a surprise to many negotiators as it did to everyone else in the conference centre – contains a “quantum” of finance from developed countries which is lower than the sums that the Guardian is aware have been talked of by some rich nations in private.
This amount is described in the text as coming from “a variety of sources” – including private finance.
At first sight, this might seem a violation of the terms on which developed countries are supposed to be providing climate finance. The “quantum” is supposed to be made of “core” finance, to come directly from the public budgets of developed countries or through multilateral development banks, which are funded mostly by the developed world.
Private finance is supposed to come in the outermost layer of the “onion” of finance being talked about here – that is, after the “inner core” of public money and the middle layer of money to come from sources such as new taxes, carbon trading and other innovative sources of finance.
So why is private finance being mentioned in the inner core?
The explanation is that this is a reference to “mobilised” finance. Mobilised finance is when private companies invest on top of money put in by countries from public budgets. So, for instance, the EU provides $30bn of public finance a year to climate efforts in developing country, and this core funding also mobilises about $7bn a year in co-investment.
Because of the way some countries account for their climate finance, it is not possible to separate out the “mobilised” finance cleanly from that provided from public budgets. Therefore the word private is included in this text, but it should be understood in this context as being limited to this “mobilised” portion of finance. The real private finance will still be in the outer layer of the onion – according to some estimates, this outer layer could be worth about $500bn of the $1 trillion or $1.3 trillion goal.
It may be possible for the presidency to clarify this meaning further, potentially in a footnote, if developing countries are unhappy that the inclusion of the word private in this portion of the text could be used as a loophole.