Oxfam International has labeled the latest climate finance text at COP29 a ‘shameful failure of leadership’, suggesting that no deal would be better than a bad deal.
On Friday, an updated New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) text was issued by the COP29 presidency, following an ‘extensive and inclusive consultation process that extended into the early hours of the morning’, which proposes that wealthy nations commit $250 billion a year for developing countries by 2035.
It also calls on parties to ‘work together to scale up financing to developing countries for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035’.
Today, the COP29 Presidency published updated texts on #NCQG after the latest consultations with the Parties. Read the full statement of the COP29 Presidency here.#COP29 #COP29Azerbaijan pic.twitter.com/4UGSQSKdDM
— COP29 Azerbaijan (@COP29_AZ) November 22, 2024
Responding, Oxfam International‘s climate justice lead, Safa’ Al Jayoussi, said, ” The COP29 Presidency’s top-down ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ approach has sidelined progressive voices. All while rich countries boycott climate justice by refusing to pay up and putting only false solutions on the table.
“Let’s be clear — there is only one option for those grappling with the harshest impacts of climate collapse: trillions, not billions, in public and grants-based finance.”
‘Completely inadequate’
WWF labelled the new text ‘completely inadequate’, noting that while a climate finance target has been established, it completely misses the mark of what is required.
“There is too much at stake for this process to end in a bad deal that doesn’t deliver the necessary finance,” said Stephen Cornelius, WWF Global deputy global climate and energy lead.
“Negotiators and political leaders must do better. It is vital that countries land on an agreement that provides sufficient resources to power climate solutions around the world. This is an investment in our collective future.”
‘Death sentence’
Elsewhere, the Global Climate and Health Alliance suggested that if the text is agreed on, “it would sign a death sentence for millions”, according to Jess Beagley, policy lead.
“Such a deal would be a bad deal not just for developing countries already under pressure from the climate crisis, but for the entire world. […] The current text leaves the doors wide open to loans and private sector finance, which risk locking developing countries into further cycles of debt, poverty and disease.”
Room for optimism?
A slightly more optimistic note came from the World Resources Institute, however, with Melanie Robinson, global climate, economics, and finance program director suggesting that the $250 billion commitment should be viewed as a starting point.
“Developed countries should aim higher than the $250 billion they’ve put on the table,” she said. “We should leave Baku with a goal that at least gets to $300 billion a year by 2035.
“This is achievable with projected finance, further reforms and shareholder support at multilateral banks, and some growth in bilateral funding. Going beyond $300 billion would even be possible if a high proportion of developing countries’ share of MDB finance is included.” [Photo: UN Climate Change]
