by Tony La Viña, Ben Galil Te, Jayvy Gamboa as originally posted on Rappler Opinion Page
It would be an injustice to simply measure where we are right now in terms of climate action only by looking at how far we have come since the Paris Agreement.
Nearly a decade since the Paris Agreement was adopted at COP21 in 2015, a new goal on climate finance has been agreed upon at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. From the previous goal of $100 billion annually, the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) aims for $300 billion per year by 2035.
This is not the first time that the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have decided to set a finance goal; in 2009, the $100 billion annual goal by 2020 was adopted.
The NCQG must be taken in light of the mandate of Paris. The milestone Paris Agreement covers a broad range of issues in response to climate change. Most notable of these is the overarching decision of limiting global warming with the goal of holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to just 1.5°C.
Achieving this goal would require a significant amount of money, most especially from developed countries. Founded on the UNFCCC principle recognizing that it shall be the developed countries that will provide the financial resources to help developing countries in tackling climate change, Paris mandated that a new collective quantified goal shall be set before 2025.
This was supposed to take into account “the needs and priorities of developing countries.” With a renewed set of temperature goals, necessary climate action, and transparency mechanisms in Paris, such a new collective goal must adequately support all of these.
It is in this context that a decision on climate finance goals was a key focus of this year’s COP negotiations. The NCQG sets the target amount of financing, or quantum, that needs to be raised to implement measures by which developing countries can respond to climate change and protect their people from its adverse impacts.
Under the latest agreement, developed countries shall “take the lead” in securing the needed amount, which shall come from a wide range of sources, including public and private finance. It further provided that “all actors” shall endeavor to scale up funding from all sources to at least $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, which may include voluntary contributions from developing countries.
How does the new goal measure up to the Paris Agreement?
The Paris Agreement states that the floor of the NCQG shall be at $100 billion annually. At face value, the $300 billion agreed upon in Baku is three times as much as the established base amount. Unfortunately, this goal is just far too inadequate from what is realistically needed by developing countries. Developing country Parties generally agree that what is actually needed is in the trillions, ranging at $1.3 trillion per year.
Aside from the amount of money, the primary source of funding has also been a key issue in discussions. Developing country Parties have expressed the view that the money should come from public financing, primarily in the form of grants. Developed country Parties, however, maintain the position that climate finance may come from a wide range of sources, which should include the private sector. They have also insisted that the financial goal should be achieved through the shared contributions of developing country Parties as well.
The new collective goal on climate finance was, unsurprisingly, met with a feeling of collective disappointment. There was no binding agreement that compelled developed nations to contribute to the goal through public finance as they were only charged to “take the lead” in achieving the goal.
More importantly, many developing country Parties, observers, and stakeholders are dismayed with the $300 billion amount, which is grossly insufficient in truly addressing the adverse impacts of climate change and transitioning toward low-carbon economies. The miserly climate finance goal embodied in the latest agreement evidently falls short in taking into account the “needs and priorities of developing countries,” which the Paris Agreement has so clearly stated.
What this means for developing nations
Now that the agreement is in place, it would be difficult for discontented Parties to insist on renegotiating the terms. This means that the $300 billion annual goal could be maintained until it is time to set a new goal by 2035. In the meantime, developing countries would have to share among themselves and subsist on this meager amount as they try to contend with climate change. Less funding overall means less funds for mitigation and adaptation efforts.
The NCQG also notably omits specific provisions for loss and damage financing or the mechanism for responding to the adverse impacts of climate change such as extreme weather events and slow onset events. While the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) has already been established, which could independently acquire funds, its absence in the general agreement on climate finance underscores that there is greater uncertainty as to whether the FRLD can have a dependable and sustainable source of money for its objectives.
For the Philippines, like many other developing nations, the devastating impacts of climate change are felt far more profoundly. Extreme weather events such as tropical storms worsen over time, while effects of slow onset events like sea-level rise gradually become more pronounced. Costs for responding to the consequent loss and damage from these impacts would be a heavier burden on economies that already simultaneously have to contend with poverty and other social inequities.
Moreover, in the face of these challenges, countries that are more vulnerable to climate change would have all the reasons to undergo low-carbon transitions and transformations. But with scarce resources, they would struggle to find the capital to finance a green transition that would be just, equitable, and inclusive. Even if the NCQG text recognizes “support[ing] just transitions,” the clearly insufficient amount presents a crucial question of whether meaningful support would truly be delivered. In all likelihood, the lack of financing would delay, if not halt, these efforts altogether.
With very little funding coming from developed countries, the very same countries who are most responsible for climate change, the rest of the world are now being left behind twice — first, in terms of development, and second, to the climate crisis. This layered burden is not only carried by developing nations, but by all marginalized communities and disadvantaged groups across the world.
Hope against all odds
Criticisms of the new climate finance goal are made on just and legitimate grounds. Even we are appalled by this outcome. Some might say that a disappointing deal would still be better than having no deal, and that little funding is better than no funding at all. This view, however, raises questions about whether the current multilateral process for climate negotiations is adequately responsive to the demands of the climate crisis.
If developing countries, vulnerable groups, and local communities are compelled to accept a lopsided proposal to save multilateralism’s face despite their sound and unequivocal objections, then how can we aspire for more ambitious goals, for enabling more urgent actions, or even strive for a better future for all?
At the end of the day, it might not even matter what Paris would say on the new climate finance goal. It would be an injustice to simply measure where we are right now in terms of climate action only by looking at how far we have come since the Paris Agreement.
Doing so would invite cynicism as there is still clearly a long way to go before we can truly say that we have done enough. Hope, however, lies not only in and during COP but, more importantly, in communities on the ground where the climate crisis is felt deeply, where climate action is boldly turned into reality, and where the calls are stronger, the cries are louder.
Looking at how climate movements have developed across the world should be enough for us to say that hope is not lost. It is through these movements, movements that represent the most vulnerable and defiant against all odds, that we can hope to have better deals and more decisive action.
A bad deal today only means that there is more work ahead for climate advocates and all stakeholders. Ultimately, we should measure how far we have come by responding to what future generations would most certainly ask us: have we all done enough, have we done what is best, and have we done what’s necessary to achieve climate justice?
This article was originally posted on the Rappler website. The authors are climate justice lawyers from the Klima Center of the Manila Observatory. Attorney Te and Gamboa attended the recently concluded COP29 climate conference in Baku.