As COP29 nears its conclusion, the much-anticipated new draft text on climate action and finance was released today, highlighting ongoing divisions between developed and developing countries. The draft acknowledges that developing nations disproportionately suffer from climate change impacts due to systemic barriers like high capital costs, limited fiscal space, and mounting debt burdens, which exacerbate existing developmental challenges.
Diverging Views on Climate Finance
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance remains a contentious issue. Ambassador Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Special Envoy for Climate Change and Chair of the African Group of Negotiators, praised the streamlined draft for incorporating several principled positions from the African Group and other developing nations. However, he criticized the lack of a clear financial commitment, particularly the absence of the proposed $1.3 trillion annual goal supported by the G77 and China.
“The elephant in the room is the lack of a quantum proposal,” Mohamed stated, urging developed nations to engage meaningfully.
The draft’s first option aligns with developing countries’ demands, proposing trillions in annual financing from 2025 to 2035. However, it controversially suggests that developing nations may voluntarily contribute, a provision seen as undermining the primary goal of support from wealthier nations.
Climate justice advocate Mohamed Adow criticized the draft, calling it a “blank cheque” and emphasizing the need for specific financial commitments. “We came here to talk about money. You measure money with numbers,” he said. While the draft includes promising language on grant-based financing and the avoidance of debt-inducing instruments, Adow stressed that concrete figures are necessary to advance negotiations.
Developed nations prefer the second option, which proposes a phased approach to climate finance, starting from their existing $100 billion annual contributions. This approach would extend the timeline to 2035, giving developed countries more time to meet their commitments. Critics argue this delays urgent climate action and lacks accountability for historical polluters.
Adaptation, Loss, and Damage Funding
The draft faced criticism for its treatment of adaptation financing. Cristina Rumbaitis, Senior Adaptation and Resilience Advisor at the UN Foundation, called the text “poor and disappointing.” Key issues include the exclusion of a specific funding floor for adaptation and the lack of reference to the Global Goal on Adaptation or the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience.
While the draft emphasizes balancing mitigation, adaptation, and loss-and-damage financing, experts fear this language could reduce adaptation funding. However, it does include some positive elements, such as calls for grant-based financing for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.
Gender and Just Transition
The draft incorporates provisions on gender-responsive climate action, recognizing that integrating gender considerations can enhance ambition and promote equality. The enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender, originally established in 2014, has been extended for ten years to support gender-balanced implementation of the Paris Agreement.
The text also underscores the need for just transition pathways, particularly in vulnerable developing countries. It calls for multi-stakeholder, people-centric approaches, focusing on education, skills development, labor rights, and social protections to ensure equitable workforce transitions in the face of climate change.
Way Forward
As the COP29 negotiations continue, the lack of specific financial commitments remains a significant hurdle. The divide between developed and developing nations underscores the urgency for concrete agreements to address the climate crisis. Without decisive action on funding and equitable burden-sharing, the goals of COP29 risk being undermined.
