CashNews.co
New Delhi:
There is no consensus on any aspect of the new climate finance deal to be discussed at the COP29 climate talks in Baku next month according to a report released by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change on Tuesday .
Countries are yet to agree on any facet of the so-called New Collective Quantitative Goal or NCQG including the structure, quantum and sources of finance for the new goal. At its simplest, NCQG involves setting a new financial target to support developing countries in their climate actions post-2025. This target is meant to built on the floor of $100 billion a year, set in 2009 (a funding target the developed world met only in 2022).
The report contains information on the work conducted by the co-chairs of the ad hoc work programme on the new collective quantified goal on climate finance in 2024, including the technical expert dialogues and meetings under the ad hoc work programme. It presents a summary of the dialogues and meetings and reflections of the co-chairs on the work conducted under the ad hoc work programme in 2024. But talks on NCQG started way back in 2022 among parties.
For example, on the quantum of NCQG, parties discussed options such as an annual goal of $ 1 bn, $ 1.1 bn, $1.3 bn, $2 trillion, or setting the goal from a floor of $100 bn. This shows that the range is too wide with chances that different country blocs would have a vastly different target in mind.
“Some Parties called for a grant-equivalent quantitative target in order to respond to the need for more grant-based and highly concessional finance,” the summary of the third meeting of the ad hoc committee said.
Further, on sources of finance, the jury is still out on including whether or not NCQG should define the contributors to the goal as developed country Parties or other Parties providing financial support. This could be determined through dynamic criteria such as on the basis of gross national income per capita or historical emissions, or by identifying lists of Parties or existing contributors as well as burden-sharing arrangements, recognizing that some Parties consider some of these aspects to be beyond the scope of the NCQG deliberations.
Also Read: Benchmarking green hydrogen in India’s energy transition
There is also no clarity on the structure of NCQG, including whether it should be framed as a single goal of finance flows provided and mobilized from developed to developing countries, or as a multilayered goal in the form of a global investment goal, with sub goals for the provision and mobilization of financial support for developing country Parties, composed of different sources and providers of climate finance, thematic targets and policy guidance.
This indicates that most of the work on the new finance goal is yet to be taken up and there will be a lot of work ahead of COP29 and at the COP29 in Baku.
“COP29 faces an uphill battle, risking the breakdown of climate talks if wealthy nations continue to dodge their climate finance responsibilities. Despite three years of technical sessions and high-level meetings, key finance issues—such as scale, quality, sources, and fairness of contributions—remain unresolved,” said Harjeet Singh, climate activist and global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative
“Climate science and history confirm that wealthy nations, having consumed the majority of fossil fuels since the industrial age, bear the primary responsibility for climate finance. Yet, these nations are now pushing for large developing countries to contribute as well, clearly aiming to dilute their own unmet obligations and shift burdens to those with less historical responsibility. Without genuine commitment from these countries, COP29 risks becoming a glaring failure to address the urgent demands of the escalating climate crisis,” he added.
In a press conference on Monday, COP 29 lead negotiator Yalchin Rafiyev said that funding needs were “in the space of the trillions” of dollars, but that we have heard different perspectives on how to achieve that ambition. He also added that a realistic goal for what the public sector could directly provide and mobilise seems to be in the “hundreds of billions.”