Rich countries commit to providing $300 billion in climate finance climate and environment

Neither war, nor the Covid pandemic, nor tensions between China and the United States have blocked agreements at climate summits over the past five years, from where it is always possible to push through an agreement, even if successful. Lets do it. Inadequate or weak and has not yet succeeded in reducing emissions rapidly. At the Baku peak, the rope became so tight that it seemed as if it would break this time. But, once again, the nearly 200 countries gathered in the capital of Azerbaijan at COP29, the annual UN climate conference, reached an agreement on financing in a time of stagnation, despite a very complex international environment and the somewhat chaotic role played by the presidency. Have arrived at. The summit, which went to Azerbaijan as the host country. Climate negotiations remain the French village of multilateralism.

The final agreement of this COP29 sets the general objective of mobilizing $1.3 trillion of public and private resources by 2035 for the fight against climate change, although without specifying clearly where they will come from. But the key to everything, and the thing that has delayed the end of this phenomenon, is how much money developed countries should put in to help states with less resources. The text indicates that the richest countries must reach a contribution of at least $300,000 million annually by 2035, which would mean multiplying the current target of $100,000 million by three. In any case, the new amounts committed fall far short of the actual needs of these countries, which have criticized Western governments for their stinginess.

At the center of the debate at this Baku summit – which started last November 11 and should have ended this Friday, it did not close until 2:30 pm this Sunday the 24th (local time) – was the so-called climate financing. ; That is, countries with fewer resources should get funds to reduce their greenhouse emissions by moving away from fossil fuels. This money should also be used to protect and prepare themselves for the impacts of warming for which they are least responsible.

15 years ago, at another climate summit, it was agreed that this financing should be provided by countries considered developed and should reach 100,000 million annually in 2020. In Baku, it was time to update that target, which will ultimately remain at 300,000 million, as agreed at this COP29.

This figure has been one of the main reasons for controversy. Because while developed nations, including the United States and the European Union, have resisted making clear until the last moment how far they are willing to go, developing countries have demanded that they put trillions on the table, to do something. What were the negotiators of the Western group not ready to do? Negotiators from these countries have repeatedly reiterated, “This should be a realistic and achievable amount.” In another draft of the financing agreement released on Friday, the proposed target was 250,000 million, raising it by 50,000 million in the final text.

However, the agreed amount has not been satisfied, with many of the countries called to be recipients such as Cuba, Bolivia and India criticizing the presidency for how it conducted the negotiations and the rich countries for not meeting their commitments. For lack of. Nigeria’s representative described the amount put on the table by developed countries as an “insult” and a “mockery”.

But if how much is important, no less important is how these funds will be raised and who will put it on the table. Regarding how, the text indicates that the $300,000 million of financing by 2035 should come from public aid, but could also come from credit. And private investment is linked to public projects and aid.

The second big question of this summit was who should contribute. Because these negotiations are based on the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which states that what were considered developed countries at the time should make the greatest efforts. These are the United States, the European Union, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and Japan. The burden of climate financing has so far fallen on their shoulders with public assistance and loans of all kinds. But other high-income, high-emission countries that were not obliged to provide funds up to this point have been left out; These are countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Russia and South Korea.

The text encourages other nations, not considered developed in the UN context, to “make additional contributions” to achieve the funding targets, although this is an invitation, not an obligation.

The key is in multilateral development banks, where there is no division between developed countries and the rest, and China and other states also contribute to them. The bloc of the so-called Global North has had a commitment from the beginning that all climate projects financed by these entities count towards the global target of $300,000 million to reduce pressure on them, and this is reflected in the final agreement. Furthermore, the text reiterates the importance of “reforming the multilateral financial architecture” and advocates eliminating “obstacles” such as “unsustainable debt levels” to developing countries receiving investment and transforming their energy systems.

The summit took place at a time of international turmoil, which has also not promoted dialogue. The United States is weeks away from the return to the White House of Donald Trump, who has already pulled his country out of the Paris Agreement. Argentina’s President Javier Meili ordered his country’s negotiators to return home in the first week of the summit. And at the heart of the EU, advances on the far right are also weakening climate policies.

Many negotiators feel pressure to close a financing agreement at this summit, given the likelihood that facing this difficult debate next year will be even more complex. “The big fight is about numbers, but we cannot leave Baku without an agreement. Baku cannot become Copenhagen (in reference to the failed 2009 summit in the Danish city) because that would be a fatal wound to multilateralism,” Juan Carlos Monterrey, Panama’s representative, said succinctly during the most tense hours. “COP29 was held under difficult circumstances, but multilateralism is alive and more essential than ever,” Laurence Toubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, said after the agreement. “The majority of countries and their citizens want stronger action, and governments must continue to lead the way as part of the global climate coalition.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said, “We had hoped for a more ambitious outcome, both financial and mitigation, to tackle the huge challenge we face, but the agreement reached provides a foundation.” , through social networks.

carbon market

This Saturday afternoon, a few hours before the closing of the agreement on financing, the Presidency of the Summit has called a plenary session, in which the good news for the negotiating countries has been that the agreement on carbon markets was closed. Due to which the path has been cleared. To create an international trading system.

However, technical regulations still need to be fully developed in 2025. But the approval of this item on the agenda, which has been delayed for years, is good news for defenders of this system of buying and selling rights, which in recent years has been involved in controversies and doubts about its real effectiveness in reducing emissions. Has been. ,