COP29 kicks off with a stalemate + Germany weakened in Baku + Fossil subsidies instead of phase-out

Dear reader,

When first impressions count, things get uncomfortable in Baku. Unlike a year ago, when COP28 started with a success story (the “Loss and Damage” fund was adopted!), COP29 was entangled in a battle over the agenda throughout Monday. There was still time for the big words about responsibility, community and the future at the beginning, then it was interrupted. We naturally followed what it was all about, what was behind it, and what it means for the conference.

We are also looking at how Germany is doing today when the heads of state and government (do not) come to Baku. In the second most important currency in politics – time and attention for an issue – Germany also has a poor record on climate at the moment. At home, everyone is thinking about elections, not climate action, and Germany will not be represented in Baku when the big names appear.

We also provide you with an overview of the other important topics at the meeting: What about the promises to phase out fossil fuels? Where will the Climate Secretariat get its money if the US leaves the process? How will climate technologies for CO2 removal be financed in the near future?

I hope you find today’s issue an interesting read! We’ll stay tuned and will update you tomorrow.

Your
Bernhard Pötter

Tough COP start: Why the agenda dispute became a test of strength

Sultan Al Jaber hands over the gavel to this year’s COP President Mukhtar Babayev.

By

Bernhard Pötter

The COP29 negotiations in Baku got underway on Monday after a 9-hour delay and a tough battle over the agenda. After the delegations had been working on compromises until the early hours of the morning the night before the start, the opening plenary adjourned immediately after the welcoming addresses by COP President Mukhtar Babayev and UNFCCC Secretary-General Simon Stiell. After hours of interruption, the agenda was finally adopted shortly after 8 p.m. in Baku, and work on the actual substance of the conference could begin. There was also a partial agreement on market mechanisms under Article 6.4 of the Paris Climate Agreement.

At the beginning of the conference, the outgoing and current COP presidents urged the delegations to work together constructively. “We are what we do, not what we say”, said Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 President from the United Arab Emirates. Azerbaijani Environment Minister and COP29 Chair Mukhtar Babayev warned of a “road to ruin”, referring to current emissions data. The states must show that they “can achieve the goals they have set themselves”. Stiell also emphasized that the conference must adopt the planned new financial target; an unchecked climate crisis would burden everyone with significantly higher bills and more uncertainty.

Delays in the agenda

Nevertheless, the negotiations only began after a long delay. This was because the delegations disputed issues that had already caused trouble in the past:

GST agenda: The central issue was the debate on where in the COP29 agenda the dialog on implementing the results of the Global Stocktake (GST) from Dubai should be negotiated. Only under the aspect of “finance”, as the developing countries want with their demand for more money – or under a separate agenda item on the Global Stocktake so that emission reductions and other aspects could also be taken into account, as the industrialized countries demand. The dispute was circumvented by negotiating the GST results under finance, but a footnote ensures that the discussions remain open and are not limited to finance.
“Unilateral trade measures” that seal off markets: Large emerging economies such as China, in particular, have taken a stand against climate measures that also affect trade, especially the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The problem was addressed, but not put on the agenda. Instead, the COP presidency wants to include it in its “consultations” with the various countries. Observers believe that China raised the issue, but did not want to escalate it – this will probably come up during the WTO negotiations.

According to negotiators and observers, the progressive group around the EU, Latin America and the island states in particular remained tough for a long time in the dispute over the GST issue. One of the reasons for this is that the countries want to ensure that, despite COP29’s focus on financial issues, the topic of emissions reduction is still included in the debates and the final decision. The compromise is now intended to ensure this.

Unlike a year ago, when COP28 began with a positive surprise (the acceptance of the Loss and Damage Fund), this “agenda fight” also emphasizes confrontation and delay. COP29 is a conference that will ultimately make very difficult and far-reaching decisions on financial issues. Apparently, many key players wanted to convey right at the start of the meeting that they want to negotiate hard and will not make any easy concessions.

Article 6.4 adopted

Late in the evening, the first (partial) breakthrough of this COP was achieved. The trade rules with greenhouse gas reductions in the private sector under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement were adopted. Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement regulates global trade in GHG reductions. In contrast to intergovernmental certificate trading under Article 6.2, private actors are also permitted under 6.4.

The standards for monitoring GHG reduction projects were still open. In October, a panel of experts commissioned by the Parties had drawn up proposals. However, instead of putting them up for discussion and then voting, the panel of experts proposed that their recommendation be adopted directly. The COP presidency followed this proposal and put the expert group’s recommendation to a vote without further consultation with the countries.

Observers criticize this as a “problematic precedent”, as it prevents a debate about the standards and circumvents state control. The standards themselves recommended by the 24-member panel of experts are also described as inadequate. For example, the monitoring of greenhouse gas reduction projects is too weak. This could lead to companies and countries claiming emission reductions that no longer take place.

COP29: This is Germany’s climate footprint for Baku

April 26 in Berlin, preparation for Baku: Petersberg Climate Dialogue with Mukhtar Babayev, Ilhalm Aliyev, Annalena Baerbock and Olaf Scholz

By

Bernhard Pötter

Due to the failure of the “traffic light” coalition, the German government is showing significantly less presence at COP29 in Baku than it normally does at climate conferences. Unlike in almost every year of the last decade, the head of government is not attending the conference. Germany is not represented at the prestigious “World Leaders Climate Action Summit” at the start of COP29 due to Olaf Scholz’s refusal to attend. The German delegation is significantly smaller than last year, and fewer ministers and state secretaries are attending.

This year, Development Minister Svenja Schulze is foregoing the trip to Baku. According to the ministry, a “division of labor” has been decided upon: State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth will represent the BMZ at the COP, while the minister will fly to Chad next week to discuss the causes of flight. And although financing is a focus of the COP, the Ministry of Finance is only represented at working level – this was already planned before the coalition broke down.

Scholz’s absence is criticized by activists: Climate activist Luisa Neubauer, together with other Fridays for Future activists, is calling on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to travel to the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan after all. The group is making an “appeal to the Chancellor to change his mind and come here”, said Neubauer at the start of the World Climate Conference in Baku.

Germany’s cloudy climate balance sheet

Germany has traditionally been one of the countries that pursue ambitious goals, drive the negotiation process forward and make significant contributions to climate financing and aid for developing countries. However, the record is bleak: the traffic light coalition has placed less focus on the climate issue than promised. Germany’s domestic climate balance is patchy. Especially since the endowment of the “Climate and Transformation Fund” (KTF) failed at the Constitutional Court in November 2023, there has been a lack of investment in climate action. The overall picture is clear:

The government has reduced the “climate protection gap” to the 2030 targets, which it inherited from the previous government at 1.1 billion tons of CO2, to around 200 million tons.
CO₂ emissions fell by 46% between 1990 and 2023 (partly due to the crisis), while the share of renewables in the electricity sector increased to just under 52%. Whether Germany will meet its climate targets for 2030 is controversial: The government believes there is a good chance of this, but its own expert council disagrees.
In addition to the expansion of renewables, the traffic light government has taken important steps: Phasing out coal in NRW as early as 2030, in eastern Germany probably also in this period via emissions trading; starting to build a hydrogen economy, climate action contracts, power plant strategy and CCS plans for industry; billions for natural climate action, a law to adapt to climate change, starting the heating transition, more money for rail infrastructure, the so-called Deutschlandticket (Germany ticket).
In other areas, the traffic light government has made little progress: The Climate Protection Act (KSG) with its tough (and enforceable) targets for individual years and departments has been severely watered down. The climate targets for transport and buildings have not been met and there is little prospect of this changing. There is neither the climate money payment mechanism announced in the coalition agreement nor the climate check for all laws. There has also been no major reduction in fossil fuel subsidies.

At the mid-term review last year, Greenpeace concluded that “little progress has been made“. The think tank cooperation “Climate Action Tracker” currently gives Germany an “insufficient” rating for its climate policy.

BMWK plans are on ice

However, the Climate Ministry still had a lot planned before the coalition broke up. According to the BMWK, many projects were to be realized or initiated in the coming year. It is now doubtful whether and which of these will happen. In detail, the BMWK had planned the following:

A new Power Plant Safety Act;
ENWG amendment for the further development of the electricity market;
Changes to energy industry law for end customer markets, grid expansion, and grid regulation;
Amendment of the Energy Statistics Ordinance to integrate hydrogen;
Introduction of a combined capacity market;
Geothermal Acceleration Act (already in the Bundestag);
TEHG Act to tighten up EU emissions trading and introduce national emissions trading for heating and transportation (already in the Bundestag);
Carbon management strategy and amendment of the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act for the transmission of CO2.

EU: climate action and national industrial interests

In Europe, Germany is officially firmly on the side of German Commission President Ursula von der Leyen when it comes to the Green Deal. However, German industrial interests and internal traffic light coalition disputes have repeatedly got in the way of the climate course:

German politicians and manufacturers are also pushing for a softening of the “end of combustion engines” for 2035.
Germany misses the EU’s LULUCF targets.
Germany will probably have to buy several billion in emission allowances from other EU countries under the “Effort Sharing” scheme.
Germany is not yet on course to achieve the EU climate targets.
Germany is much more critical of the role of nuclear power in the decarbonization of the energy sector and advocates investment in renewables instead of nuclear energy.

‘Cloverleaf’ performs strongly

Germany is showing a clear international profile. Baku is the third COP at which Germany’s course is determined primarily by green ministers, for whom the climate issue is important. The “cloverleaf” consisting of the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Change, the Environment Ministry and the Development Ministry has brought Germany’s diplomatic and economic weight to the negotiations to a greater extent than in the past, when only the Environment and Development Ministries were present at the COPs. Whether these priorities will remain the same after the next Bundestag elections is currently highly uncertain – as is Germany’s role.

Germany is one of the organizers and drivers of international climate efforts. It is an important member of the “High Ambition Coalition” (HAC), which is used at COPs to promote important issues by countries across all blocs.

Since 2023, the “Climate Foreign Policy Strategy” has bundled the government’s activities alongside the security and China strategies . Under Annalena Baerbock, the AA has developed climate as a central part of its geopolitical portfolio and is focusing its messages and internal work on the topic. However, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have partly diverted attention away from the topic.
Germany is planning and supporting the energy transition in other countries: With the JETPs in emerging countries such as South Africa, Vietnam or Indonesia, although there are always problems and delays there. However, Berlin also helps with the creation of NDCs through the “International Climate Initiative” and NDC partnerships.
The search for a replacement for Russian natural gas supplies has damaged Germany’s position on phasing out fossil fuels. On several occasions, the government has not supported declarations by the High Ambition Coalition because it rejected the financing of fossil fuel projects abroad – but Chancellor Olaf Scholz, for example, promised to help Senegal develop gas reserves on his own initiative.
Germany remains one of the largest and most reliable donors of international climate finance. In 2022, it provided €5.7 billion in public money. Together with private investments, this puts Germany at around the envisioned ten billion US dollars which is considered its fair share of the $100 billion in annual financing from industrialized countries.
However, it is unclear whether Germany will be able to provide the six billion euros promised by the Chancellor in 2025 under the current austerity measures. The primarily responsible development ministry is very skeptical.
The possible international consequences of the scandal surrounding fake “Upstream Emissions Reductions” awarded by the Federal Environment Agency for projects in China are not yet foreseeable. The fraud is currently being investigated by the agency and the judicial authorities. However, the issue could become internationally relevant if licensing systems for CO2 trading and future green hydrogen, for example, also prove to be susceptible to fraud.

Fossil raw materials: billions in subsidies instead of turning away from oil and gas

Investment in new oil and gas fields remains high, as do state subsidies for fossil fuels.

By

Nico Beckert

Just a few days before the climate conference, a high-ranking COP official from the host country is still making the “many gas fields” in Azerbaijan “that are to be developed” attractive to investors. The country wants to increase its gas production by 30 percent over the next decade and double its exports to Europe by 2027.

What sounds like a scandal is no great surprise on closer inspection. Although the states decided for the first time at the last climate conference to “transition away from fossil fuels in the energy system”, many states continue to issue hundreds of extraction licenses. And state subsidies for fossil fuels have once again shot up to record levels.

Tens of billions for the search for new oil and gas fields

The production and consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for 86 percent of global CO2 emissions. Coal, oil and gas are the main drivers of climate change. In order to achieve the climate targets, no more new oil and gas fields should be developed and coal consumption would have to fall sharply. But the opposite is the case:

Over the past three years, the oil and gas industry has spent an average of $61.1 billion annually on the search for new oil and gas deposits, as the new Global Oil and Gas Exit List from Urgewald shows. 95 percent of all companies on the comprehensive list of over 1,700 companies are looking for new deposits.
According to Urgewald research, 578 companies want to bring up to 239 billion barrels of oil equivalent “from previously untapped oil and gas fields into production” over the next one to seven years. Exploiting this amount would break the 2-degree limit, according to Urgewald. Saudi Aramco, Qatar Energy, ADNOC, Exxon Mobil, Gazprom, Total Energies and Petrobras are the companies with the biggest plans to expand production in the short term.
Last year, licenses were awarded for oil and gas exploration that could lead to more than two gigatons of CO2 emissions if the suspected deposits are fully exploited, according to the think tank International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). By comparison, Germany’s CO2 emissions in 2023 were 598 million tons (0.6 gigatons).
Russia, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, the USA, Mozambique, the UK and China have awarded exploration licenses with the largest potential share of CO2 in the last twelve months. The new US President Donald Trump wants to further expand production. During the election campaign, he revived the battle cry “Drill, baby, drill”.

With all this ongoing euphoria for fossil fuels, it is no wonder that the largest private oil and gas producers such as Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total Energies have scaled back their climate targets in recent years. BP has recently rowed back even further. The company has abandoned its goal of producing less oil and gas by 2030.

According to Urgewald, however, there are also positive signs. 39 financial institutions such as banks, asset managers and insurers have adopted “effective exclusion criteria in the oil and gas sector that end financial transactions with large parts of the industry”. However, Regine Richter, energy and finance campaigner at Urgewald, says: “We need many more financial institutions that are prepared to introduce strict exclusion rules.”

Fossil subsidies have quadrupled since 2020

The picture is also repeated for public subsidies for fossil fuels: At both G20 and COP levels, countries have repeatedly pledged to reduce “inefficient subsidies”. However, state subsidies for fossil fuels have recently shot up again:

According to the OECD and IISD’s Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker, around $1.53 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels will be paid out worldwide in 2022 – a fourfold increase compared to 2020. The sharp increase is due to the war in Ukraine and the rise in energy prices.
The majority ($1.45 trillion) of these subsidies went to consumers. The largest share of subsidies was paid in emerging countries (over $1.1 trillion). However, subsidies also tripled in rich countries.
According to the NGO One, rich countries spent $2.7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies between 2010 and 2022, six times as much as they pledged for climate action.

Intermediate steps necessary: end of expansion and financing, fewer imports

With a view to the COP29 negotiations, Urgewald campaigner Richter is calling for “concrete interim steps”. Turning away from fossil fuels is a long-term goal, which makes it all the more important for the states to adopt concrete measures at COP29, says Richter. “Such interim steps could be an end to the expansion and financing of the oil and gas industry at home and abroad”, she says. “In addition, COP29 should adopt concrete plans on exactly what a phase-out of fossil fuels could look like, i.e. how it could be structured in a socially just way.”

In order to persuade the major producer states such as Saudi Arabia, the USA and COP host Azerbaijan to move away from fossil fuels, “the consumer states must reduce their imports. This would require investment in the restructuring of energy systems to reduce the demand for fossil fuels”, Richter demands in an interview with Table.Briefings. Overall, it is important to make the move away from fossil fuels more measurable so that the noble goal is not just on paper.

UNFCCC: Why a financial gap looms after the US withdrawal

A possible withdrawal of the USA from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would put the Climate Change Secretariat in financial difficulties. If the US, the largest contributor to the convention to date, were to leave, as announced by President-elect Donald Trump, the UN Climate Change Secretariat would lose more than a quarter of its annual core budget, i.e. around $20 million. This is according to internal calculations by UN Climate Change, which the UN has confirmed to Table.Briefings.

This money would have to be raised by other countries – China would probably become the UNFCCC’s largest financier. Otherwise, the UN agency would no longer be able to carry out key tasks, or only to a limited extent. There is already a large gap in the UN Climate Change budget – in spring 2024, almost $10 million of the “core budget” of $74 million had not been paid in by the states. The USA’s share of this missing money was $7.2 million.

More and more tasks without additional resources

The scenario only takes into account the possible withdrawal of the USA from the convention. If Trump were to lead his country out of the Paris Agreement, as he did during his first term in office, the USA would still have to make payments. Due to a lack of remittances from member states, UN Climate Change has already canceled events and not filled positions in the past with around 400 employees. In March, Secretary-General Simon Stiell made an urgent appeal to the UN member states. He accused them of transferring more and more tasks to the agency without providing it with the necessary resources.

The Secretariat, based in Bonn, organizes the work under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It organizes the COPs and other meetings and supports poor countries in particular, for example in drawing up climate plans (NDCs) or implementing the Global Stock Take (GST). So far, it has a “core budget” of $74 million, which COP28 approved for the 2024/25 biennium budget. In addition, tasks assigned to the Secretariat by the COP as the convention’s supreme decision-making body are to raise an additional $78 million through “voluntary contributions” and donations. According to a current UN calculation, around $28 million is still missing from this budget. bpo

Development banks: First state guarantees for climate financing

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will increase its climate-related lending by up to $7.2 billion after the US and Japan agreed to take on the risk for some existing loans. This was reported by the news agency Reuters. Accordingly, the ADB’s new strategy could serve as a template for other development banks. The ADB has set itself a long-term cumulative target of $100 billion for climate financing for the period 2019 to 2030. In 2023, it has lent $9.8 billion.

According to the new plan, the USA would guarantee up to one billion US dollars of existing loans from Asia’s most important development institution, while Japan would take on $600 million. This should enable the bank to grant more loans for climate-relevant projects. It is not yet clear how the election of Donald Trump in the USA will affect this project.

First use of government guarantees for climate financing

“The structure is a fantastic way to expand the lending capacity of a multilateral development bank (MDB) without going through the politically difficult situation of a general capital increase”, said Jacob Sorensen, Director of Partner Funds at the ADB. A general capital increase would have to be financed by additional contributions from countries. The additional scope for lending created by the guarantees is to be used over the next five years, while the term of the guarantees themselves is 25 years, the ADB said.

One of the first beneficiaries of the initiative will be a project in Pakistan to produce sustainable aviation fuel from cooking oil. Around half of the $90 million required will come from the ADB program, the contract for which is to be signed on Nov. 20.

The ADB, which is based in the Philippines, has spent three years developing the guarantee agreement with a group of Western governments and hopes other countries will soon follow suit. While the agreements mark the first use of sovereign guarantees for climate finance, they have previously been used to finance other areas of lending, such as education. rtr

IRENA: Expansion of renewables must be accelerated

Renewable energies are still replacing fossil fuels too slowly in the energy mix, according to the World Energy Transitions Outlook published yesterday by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). With the current national plans and targets for the expansion of renewables, the goal of tripling renewables by 2030 can only be achieved by half, according to IRENA. In 2023, a record 473 gigawatts of renewable capacity was installed worldwide. However, 1,044 gigawatts of additional capacity would be needed annually by 2030. The goal of doubling energy efficiency is also at risk of being missed with current efforts. The electrification of the transport, building and industrial sectors must be accelerated.

IRENA warns that the entire electricity system needs to be reformed so that renewables can grow faster:

Regulations and prices need to be better adapted to flexible renewables and electricity storage systems.
Higher costs for the construction of renewables or the purchase of electric cars and heat pumps – compared to traditional technologies – would have to be absorbed politically.
The new climate finance goal (NCQG) must give poorer countries more and better access to financing. Only then would these countries make their new climate targets (NDCs) ambitious enough.

According to IRENA, around $47 trillion will need to be invested in the energy system worldwide by 2030. The largest share of the costs ($15.8 trillion) would be for energy efficiency and energy saving. The expansion of renewables will require $10.7 trillion. The expansion of electricity grids and measures for more flexibility will cost five trillion US dollars, while the electrification of industry and buildings through heat pumps and transport (e.g. e-charging networks) will cost $3.4 trillion. nib

CO2 removal: KfW and PIK present financial concept for discussion

In order to finance the necessary future CO2 removals from the atmosphere, they could be integrated into existing emissions trading systems. A “yet-to-be-founded European institution”, a kind of central bank for CO2 certificates, would then ensure that trading works well. This is what the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and KfW propose in a joint discussion paper.

The paper states that new governance and financial structures are needed in order to scale CO2 removals to the extent required in the future. PIK and KfW describe possible ways to establish them. Promotional banks such as KfW could therefore make a decisive contribution to market development, for example through “early purchase programs and risk assumption”. PIK Director Ottmar Edenhofer and KfW CEO Stefan Wintels plan to present their proposal next Thursday on the sidelines of COP29 in Baku.

Because CO2 emissions are falling too slowly to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, the PIK expects that “a great deal of CO2 will have to be removed from the atmosphere” in the future – which could cost up to two percent of annual global economic output in 2050, depending on the scenario. However, the climate damage would be even more expensive. The necessary investments cannot be financed by public funds alone.

According to PIK, the annual climate damage worldwide could reach trillions of euros by 2050. The research institute puts the economic damage caused by the emission of one ton of CO2 at €1000 and more. For comparison: The price for the right to emit one ton of CO2 is currently around 65 euros in European emissions trading. ae

COP29: Germanwatch predicts little progress in the agrifood sector

No significant progress is expected in the areas of agriculture and food security at the COP29 World Climate Conference in Baku, which began yesterday. This forecast was made by the non-governmental organization Germanwatch in its briefing “Food systems at COP29”. It states that the potential of both sectors for climate action is still not being sufficiently taken into account. Furthermore, a global target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is missing.

Food systems are responsible for up to a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, writes the NGO. Binding and ambitious measures for a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are therefore essential. Furthermore, a resilient design of food systems with regard to food security, sustainability and compliance with planetary boundaries and human rights is necessary to adapt to climate change.

Financing plan for food transition fails to materialize

Germanwatch notes that previous approaches and efforts in this regard are far from sufficient. In 2019 and 2020, only four percent of global climate finance went to the agriculture and food sector. It is crucial that the international community also sets a sub-target for financing the transformation of global food systems when agreeing on a new global climate financing target. However, this is not to be expected at COP29.

Whether and what specific goals will be formulated for the agrifood sector at COP29 will become clear this week and next. The Food, Agriculture and Water Day will take place on Nov. 19, where initiatives from the COP presidency and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) will be presented. kih

Climate finance: NGO calls for more funds for conflict areas

At the start of the UN climate summit, the NGO International Rescue Committee (IRC) is pushing for international climate financing to be geared more towards the needs of people in conflict areas. IRC is calling on the delegations in Baku to:

provide more funding for resilience, adaptation and forward-looking measures in conflict regions,
focus more strongly on climate financing for “underserved population groups” and
give priority to cooperation with “local organizations led by women or other marginalized groups“.

According to the IRC, the effects of climate change and conflict are particularly severe in 17 countries (Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria and Yemen). “On the one hand, at 10.5 percent, these countries make up a small proportion of the world’s population and are responsible for only 3.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions“, writes the NGO. “On the other hand, around a third of all people affected by natural disasters and three-quarters of all people in need of humanitarian aid worldwide live there.” Climate change acts “as a threat catalyst for local communities: Food insecurity is increasing, livelihoods are under threat and tensions are intensifying”.

Specifically, the IRC calls, among other things, for 18 percent of the total adaptation funding earmarked for developing countries to be given to climate-prone and conflict-affected countries, for climate action and adaptation funding to be split equally, and for conflict-affected countries to be granted access to the “Loss and Damage” fund. ae

Reuters: Taliban at COP29. Representatives of the Afghan Taliban will attend the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku. The Taliban were not welcome at the UN climate conferences in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in 2022 and in Dubai in 2023. Read the full article

Wall Street Journal: Bathing in oil. The fact that the World Climate Change Conference is being held in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku this year seems incongruous. Hardly any other country is as economically dependent on oil as Azerbaijan. Baku even offers baths in warm oil. Read the full article

Nau: China should also pay. At the climate summit in Baku, Switzerland wants to lobby for an increase in the number of donor countries investing in global climate protection. All countries, but above all the wealthy states, should contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the best of their ability. In the future, not only industrialized countries should pay, but also China and Saudi Arabia. Read the full article

Politico: Trump wants to cancel climate agreement. Donald Trump wants to cancel the Paris climate agreement again after taking office in January. This could have negative economic consequences for the USA. China could leave the country behind in areas such as e-mobility and renewable energy. Read the full article

New York Times: Climate protection to the last. Biden administration officials are scrambling to award hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and set environmental regulations. President Joe Biden’s climate agenda is to be largely enforced until Donald Trump moves into the White House. Read the full article

Times: Starmer backs CO2 reduction. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is among the few G7 heads of government who will be attending COP29 in Azerbaijan. Starmer believes that it is in the UK’s interest to lead global efforts to reduce CO₂ emissions. Read the full article

CLIMATE.TABLE EDITORIAL OFFICE

Bernhard
Pötter

Alexandra
Endres

Christiane
Kühl

Lisa
Kuner

Lukas
Knigge

Malte
Kreutzfeldt

Nico
Beckert

Dear reader,

When first impressions count, things get uncomfortable in Baku. Unlike a year ago, when COP28 started with a success story (the “Loss and Damage” fund was adopted!), COP29 was entangled in a battle over the agenda throughout Monday. There was still time for the big words about responsibility, community and the future at the beginning, then it was interrupted. We naturally followed what it was all about, what was behind it, and what it means for the conference.

We are also looking at how Germany is doing today when the heads of state and government (do not) come to Baku. In the second most important currency in politics – time and attention for an issue – Germany also has a poor record on climate at the moment. At home, everyone is thinking about elections, not climate action, and Germany will not be represented in Baku when the big names appear.

We also provide you with an overview of the other important topics at the meeting: What about the promises to phase out fossil fuels? Where will the Climate Secretariat get its money if the US leaves the process? How will climate technologies for CO2 removal be financed in the near future?

I hope you find today’s issue an interesting read! We’ll stay tuned and will update you tomorrow.

Your
Bernhard Pötter

Tough COP start: Why the agenda dispute became a test of strength

By

Bernhard Pötter

The COP29 negotiations in Baku got underway on Monday after a 9-hour delay and a tough battle over the agenda. After the delegations had been working on compromises until the early hours of the morning the night before the start, the opening plenary adjourned immediately after the welcoming addresses by COP President Mukhtar Babayev and UNFCCC Secretary-General Simon Stiell. After hours of interruption, the agenda was finally adopted shortly after 8 p.m. in Baku, and work on the actual substance of the conference could begin. There was also a partial agreement on market mechanisms under Article 6.4 of the Paris Climate Agreement.

At the beginning of the conference, the outgoing and current COP presidents urged the delegations to work together constructively. “We are what we do, not what we say”, said Sultan Al Jaber, COP28 President from the United Arab Emirates. Azerbaijani Environment Minister and COP29 Chair Mukhtar Babayev warned of a “road to ruin”, referring to current emissions data. The states must show that they “can achieve the goals they have set themselves”. Stiell also emphasized that the conference must adopt the planned new financial target; an unchecked climate crisis would burden everyone with significantly higher bills and more uncertainty.

Delays in the agenda

Nevertheless, the negotiations only began after a long delay. This was because the delegations disputed issues that had already caused trouble in the past:

GST agenda: The central issue was the debate on where in the COP29 agenda the dialog on implementing the results of the Global Stocktake (GST) from Dubai should be negotiated. Only under the aspect of “finance”, as the developing countries want with their demand for more money – or under a separate agenda item on the Global Stocktake so that emission reductions and other aspects could also be taken into account, as the industrialized countries demand. The dispute was circumvented by negotiating the GST results under finance, but a footnote ensures that the discussions remain open and are not limited to finance.
“Unilateral trade measures” that seal off markets: Large emerging economies such as China, in particular, have taken a stand against climate measures that also affect trade, especially the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The problem was addressed, but not put on the agenda. Instead, the COP presidency wants to include it in its “consultations” with the various countries. Observers believe that China raised the issue, but did not want to escalate it – this will probably come up during the WTO negotiations.

According to negotiators and observers, the progressive group around the EU, Latin America and the island states in particular remained tough for a long time in the dispute over the GST issue. One of the reasons for this is that the countries want to ensure that, despite COP29’s focus on financial issues, the topic of emissions reduction is still included in the debates and the final decision. The compromise is now intended to ensure this.

Unlike a year ago, when COP28 began with a positive surprise (the acceptance of the Loss and Damage Fund), this “agenda fight” also emphasizes confrontation and delay. COP29 is a conference that will ultimately make very difficult and far-reaching decisions on financial issues. Apparently, many key players wanted to convey right at the start of the meeting that they want to negotiate hard and will not make any easy concessions.

Article 6.4 adopted

Late in the evening, the first (partial) breakthrough of this COP was achieved. The trade rules with greenhouse gas reductions in the private sector under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement were adopted. Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement regulates global trade in GHG reductions. In contrast to intergovernmental certificate trading under Article 6.2, private actors are also permitted under 6.4.

The standards for monitoring GHG reduction projects were still open. In October, a panel of experts commissioned by the Parties had drawn up proposals. However, instead of putting them up for discussion and then voting, the panel of experts proposed that their recommendation be adopted directly. The COP presidency followed this proposal and put the expert group’s recommendation to a vote without further consultation with the countries.

Observers criticize this as a “problematic precedent”, as it prevents a debate about the standards and circumvents state control. The standards themselves recommended by the 24-member panel of experts are also described as inadequate. For example, the monitoring of greenhouse gas reduction projects is too weak. This could lead to companies and countries claiming emission reductions that no longer take place.

COP29: This is Germany’s climate footprint for Baku

By

Bernhard Pötter

Due to the failure of the “traffic light” coalition, the German government is showing significantly less presence at COP29 in Baku than it normally does at climate conferences. Unlike in almost every year of the last decade, the head of government is not attending the conference. Germany is not represented at the prestigious “World Leaders Climate Action Summit” at the start of COP29 due to Olaf Scholz’s refusal to attend. The German delegation is significantly smaller than last year, and fewer ministers and state secretaries are attending.

This year, Development Minister Svenja Schulze is foregoing the trip to Baku. According to the ministry, a “division of labor” has been decided upon: State Secretary Jochen Flasbarth will represent the BMZ at the COP, while the minister will fly to Chad next week to discuss the causes of flight. And although financing is a focus of the COP, the Ministry of Finance is only represented at working level – this was already planned before the coalition broke down.

Scholz’s absence is criticized by activists: Climate activist Luisa Neubauer, together with other Fridays for Future activists, is calling on German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to travel to the UN climate summit in Azerbaijan after all. The group is making an “appeal to the Chancellor to change his mind and come here”, said Neubauer at the start of the World Climate Conference in Baku.

Germany’s cloudy climate balance sheet

Germany has traditionally been one of the countries that pursue ambitious goals, drive the negotiation process forward and make significant contributions to climate financing and aid for developing countries. However, the record is bleak: the traffic light coalition has placed less focus on the climate issue than promised. Germany’s domestic climate balance is patchy. Especially since the endowment of the “Climate and Transformation Fund” (KTF) failed at the Constitutional Court in November 2023, there has been a lack of investment in climate action. The overall picture is clear:

The government has reduced the “climate protection gap” to the 2030 targets, which it inherited from the previous government at 1.1 billion tons of CO2, to around 200 million tons.
CO₂ emissions fell by 46% between 1990 and 2023 (partly due to the crisis), while the share of renewables in the electricity sector increased to just under 52%. Whether Germany will meet its climate targets for 2030 is controversial: The government believes there is a good chance of this, but its own expert council disagrees.
In addition to the expansion of renewables, the traffic light government has taken important steps: Phasing out coal in NRW as early as 2030, in eastern Germany probably also in this period via emissions trading; starting to build a hydrogen economy, climate action contracts, power plant strategy and CCS plans for industry; billions for natural climate action, a law to adapt to climate change, starting the heating transition, more money for rail infrastructure, the so-called Deutschlandticket (Germany ticket).
In other areas, the traffic light government has made little progress: The Climate Protection Act (KSG) with its tough (and enforceable) targets for individual years and departments has been severely watered down. The climate targets for transport and buildings have not been met and there is little prospect of this changing. There is neither the climate money payment mechanism announced in the coalition agreement nor the climate check for all laws. There has also been no major reduction in fossil fuel subsidies.

At the mid-term review last year, Greenpeace concluded that “little progress has been made“. The think tank cooperation “Climate Action Tracker” currently gives Germany an “insufficient” rating for its climate policy.

BMWK plans are on ice

However, the Climate Ministry still had a lot planned before the coalition broke up. According to the BMWK, many projects were to be realized or initiated in the coming year. It is now doubtful whether and which of these will happen. In detail, the BMWK had planned the following:

A new Power Plant Safety Act;
ENWG amendment for the further development of the electricity market;
Changes to energy industry law for end customer markets, grid expansion, and grid regulation;
Amendment of the Energy Statistics Ordinance to integrate hydrogen;
Introduction of a combined capacity market;
Geothermal Acceleration Act (already in the Bundestag);
TEHG Act to tighten up EU emissions trading and introduce national emissions trading for heating and transportation (already in the Bundestag);
Carbon management strategy and amendment of the Carbon Dioxide Storage Act for the transmission of CO2.

EU: climate action and national industrial interests

In Europe, Germany is officially firmly on the side of German Commission President Ursula von der Leyen when it comes to the Green Deal. However, German industrial interests and internal traffic light coalition disputes have repeatedly got in the way of the climate course:

German politicians and manufacturers are also pushing for a softening of the “end of combustion engines” for 2035.
Germany misses the EU’s LULUCF targets.
Germany will probably have to buy several billion in emission allowances from other EU countries under the “Effort Sharing” scheme.
Germany is not yet on course to achieve the EU climate targets.
Germany is much more critical of the role of nuclear power in the decarbonization of the energy sector and advocates investment in renewables instead of nuclear energy.

‘Cloverleaf’ performs strongly

Germany is showing a clear international profile. Baku is the third COP at which Germany’s course is determined primarily by green ministers, for whom the climate issue is important. The “cloverleaf” consisting of the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Change, the Environment Ministry and the Development Ministry has brought Germany’s diplomatic and economic weight to the negotiations to a greater extent than in the past, when only the Environment and Development Ministries were present at the COPs. Whether these priorities will remain the same after the next Bundestag elections is currently highly uncertain – as is Germany’s role.

Germany is one of the organizers and drivers of international climate efforts. It is an important member of the “High Ambition Coalition” (HAC), which is used at COPs to promote important issues by countries across all blocs.

Since 2023, the “Climate Foreign Policy Strategy” has bundled the government’s activities alongside the security and China strategies . Under Annalena Baerbock, the AA has developed climate as a central part of its geopolitical portfolio and is focusing its messages and internal work on the topic. However, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have partly diverted attention away from the topic.
Germany is planning and supporting the energy transition in other countries: With the JETPs in emerging countries such as South Africa, Vietnam or Indonesia, although there are always problems and delays there. However, Berlin also helps with the creation of NDCs through the “International Climate Initiative” and NDC partnerships.
The search for a replacement for Russian natural gas supplies has damaged Germany’s position on phasing out fossil fuels. On several occasions, the government has not supported declarations by the High Ambition Coalition because it rejected the financing of fossil fuel projects abroad – but Chancellor Olaf Scholz, for example, promised to help Senegal develop gas reserves on his own initiative.
Germany remains one of the largest and most reliable donors of international climate finance. In 2022, it provided €5.7 billion in public money. Together with private investments, this puts Germany at around the envisioned ten billion US dollars which is considered its fair share of the $100 billion in annual financing from industrialized countries.
However, it is unclear whether Germany will be able to provide the six billion euros promised by the Chancellor in 2025 under the current austerity measures. The primarily responsible development ministry is very skeptical.
The possible international consequences of the scandal surrounding fake “Upstream Emissions Reductions” awarded by the Federal Environment Agency for projects in China are not yet foreseeable. The fraud is currently being investigated by the agency and the judicial authorities. However, the issue could become internationally relevant if licensing systems for CO2 trading and future green hydrogen, for example, also prove to be susceptible to fraud.

Fossil raw materials: billions in subsidies instead of turning away from oil and gas

By

Nico Beckert

Just a few days before the climate conference, a high-ranking COP official from the host country is still making the “many gas fields” in Azerbaijan “that are to be developed” attractive to investors. The country wants to increase its gas production by 30 percent over the next decade and double its exports to Europe by 2027.

What sounds like a scandal is no great surprise on closer inspection. Although the states decided for the first time at the last climate conference to “transition away from fossil fuels in the energy system”, many states continue to issue hundreds of extraction licenses. And state subsidies for fossil fuels have once again shot up to record levels.

Tens of billions for the search for new oil and gas fields

The production and consumption of fossil fuels is responsible for 86 percent of global CO2 emissions. Coal, oil and gas are the main drivers of climate change. In order to achieve the climate targets, no more new oil and gas fields should be developed and coal consumption would have to fall sharply. But the opposite is the case:

Over the past three years, the oil and gas industry has spent an average of $61.1 billion annually on the search for new oil and gas deposits, as the new Global Oil and Gas Exit List from Urgewald shows. 95 percent of all companies on the comprehensive list of over 1,700 companies are looking for new deposits.
According to Urgewald research, 578 companies want to bring up to 239 billion barrels of oil equivalent “from previously untapped oil and gas fields into production” over the next one to seven years. Exploiting this amount would break the 2-degree limit, according to Urgewald. Saudi Aramco, Qatar Energy, ADNOC, Exxon Mobil, Gazprom, Total Energies and Petrobras are the companies with the biggest plans to expand production in the short term.
Last year, licenses were awarded for oil and gas exploration that could lead to more than two gigatons of CO2 emissions if the suspected deposits are fully exploited, according to the think tank International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). By comparison, Germany’s CO2 emissions in 2023 were 598 million tons (0.6 gigatons).
Russia, Norway, the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, the USA, Mozambique, the UK and China have awarded exploration licenses with the largest potential share of CO2 in the last twelve months. The new US President Donald Trump wants to further expand production. During the election campaign, he revived the battle cry “Drill, baby, drill”.

With all this ongoing euphoria for fossil fuels, it is no wonder that the largest private oil and gas producers such as Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total Energies have scaled back their climate targets in recent years. BP has recently rowed back even further. The company has abandoned its goal of producing less oil and gas by 2030.

According to Urgewald, however, there are also positive signs. 39 financial institutions such as banks, asset managers and insurers have adopted “effective exclusion criteria in the oil and gas sector that end financial transactions with large parts of the industry”. However, Regine Richter, energy and finance campaigner at Urgewald, says: “We need many more financial institutions that are prepared to introduce strict exclusion rules.”

Fossil subsidies have quadrupled since 2020

The picture is also repeated for public subsidies for fossil fuels: At both G20 and COP levels, countries have repeatedly pledged to reduce “inefficient subsidies”. However, state subsidies for fossil fuels have recently shot up again:

According to the OECD and IISD’s Fossil Fuel Subsidy Tracker, around $1.53 trillion in subsidies for fossil fuels will be paid out worldwide in 2022 – a fourfold increase compared to 2020. The sharp increase is due to the war in Ukraine and the rise in energy prices.
The majority ($1.45 trillion) of these subsidies went to consumers. The largest share of subsidies was paid in emerging countries (over $1.1 trillion). However, subsidies also tripled in rich countries.
According to the NGO One, rich countries spent $2.7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies between 2010 and 2022, six times as much as they pledged for climate action.

Intermediate steps necessary: end of expansion and financing, fewer imports

With a view to the COP29 negotiations, Urgewald campaigner Richter is calling for “concrete interim steps”. Turning away from fossil fuels is a long-term goal, which makes it all the more important for the states to adopt concrete measures at COP29, says Richter. “Such interim steps could be an end to the expansion and financing of the oil and gas industry at home and abroad”, she says. “In addition, COP29 should adopt concrete plans on exactly what a phase-out of fossil fuels could look like, i.e. how it could be structured in a socially just way.”

In order to persuade the major producer states such as Saudi Arabia, the USA and COP host Azerbaijan to move away from fossil fuels, “the consumer states must reduce their imports. This would require investment in the restructuring of energy systems to reduce the demand for fossil fuels”, Richter demands in an interview with Table.Briefings. Overall, it is important to make the move away from fossil fuels more measurable so that the noble goal is not just on paper.

UNFCCC: Why a financial gap looms after the US withdrawal

A possible withdrawal of the USA from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would put the Climate Change Secretariat in financial difficulties. If the US, the largest contributor to the convention to date, were to leave, as announced by President-elect Donald Trump, the UN Climate Change Secretariat would lose more than a quarter of its annual core budget, i.e. around $20 million. This is according to internal calculations by UN Climate Change, which the UN has confirmed to Table.Briefings.

This money would have to be raised by other countries – China would probably become the UNFCCC’s largest financier. Otherwise, the UN agency would no longer be able to carry out key tasks, or only to a limited extent. There is already a large gap in the UN Climate Change budget – in spring 2024, almost $10 million of the “core budget” of $74 million had not been paid in by the states. The USA’s share of this missing money was $7.2 million.

More and more tasks without additional resources

The scenario only takes into account the possible withdrawal of the USA from the convention. If Trump were to lead his country out of the Paris Agreement, as he did during his first term in office, the USA would still have to make payments. Due to a lack of remittances from member states, UN Climate Change has already canceled events and not filled positions in the past with around 400 employees. In March, Secretary-General Simon Stiell made an urgent appeal to the UN member states. He accused them of transferring more and more tasks to the agency without providing it with the necessary resources.

The Secretariat, based in Bonn, organizes the work under the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It organizes the COPs and other meetings and supports poor countries in particular, for example in drawing up climate plans (NDCs) or implementing the Global Stock Take (GST). So far, it has a “core budget” of $74 million, which COP28 approved for the 2024/25 biennium budget. In addition, tasks assigned to the Secretariat by the COP as the convention’s supreme decision-making body are to raise an additional $78 million through “voluntary contributions” and donations. According to a current UN calculation, around $28 million is still missing from this budget. bpo

Development banks: First state guarantees for climate financing

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) will increase its climate-related lending by up to $7.2 billion after the US and Japan agreed to take on the risk for some existing loans. This was reported by the news agency Reuters. Accordingly, the ADB’s new strategy could serve as a template for other development banks. The ADB has set itself a long-term cumulative target of $100 billion for climate financing for the period 2019 to 2030. In 2023, it has lent $9.8 billion.

According to the new plan, the USA would guarantee up to one billion US dollars of existing loans from Asia’s most important development institution, while Japan would take on $600 million. This should enable the bank to grant more loans for climate-relevant projects. It is not yet clear how the election of Donald Trump in the USA will affect this project.

First use of government guarantees for climate financing

“The structure is a fantastic way to expand the lending capacity of a multilateral development bank (MDB) without going through the politically difficult situation of a general capital increase”, said Jacob Sorensen, Director of Partner Funds at the ADB. A general capital increase would have to be financed by additional contributions from countries. The additional scope for lending created by the guarantees is to be used over the next five years, while the term of the guarantees themselves is 25 years, the ADB said.

One of the first beneficiaries of the initiative will be a project in Pakistan to produce sustainable aviation fuel from cooking oil. Around half of the $90 million required will come from the ADB program, the contract for which is to be signed on Nov. 20.

The ADB, which is based in the Philippines, has spent three years developing the guarantee agreement with a group of Western governments and hopes other countries will soon follow suit. While the agreements mark the first use of sovereign guarantees for climate finance, they have previously been used to finance other areas of lending, such as education. rtr

IRENA: Expansion of renewables must be accelerated

Renewable energies are still replacing fossil fuels too slowly in the energy mix, according to the World Energy Transitions Outlook published yesterday by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). With the current national plans and targets for the expansion of renewables, the goal of tripling renewables by 2030 can only be achieved by half, according to IRENA. In 2023, a record 473 gigawatts of renewable capacity was installed worldwide. However, 1,044 gigawatts of additional capacity would be needed annually by 2030. The goal of doubling energy efficiency is also at risk of being missed with current efforts. The electrification of the transport, building and industrial sectors must be accelerated.

IRENA warns that the entire electricity system needs to be reformed so that renewables can grow faster:

Regulations and prices need to be better adapted to flexible renewables and electricity storage systems.
Higher costs for the construction of renewables or the purchase of electric cars and heat pumps – compared to traditional technologies – would have to be absorbed politically.
The new climate finance goal (NCQG) must give poorer countries more and better access to financing. Only then would these countries make their new climate targets (NDCs) ambitious enough.

According to IRENA, around $47 trillion will need to be invested in the energy system worldwide by 2030. The largest share of the costs ($15.8 trillion) would be for energy efficiency and energy saving. The expansion of renewables will require $10.7 trillion. The expansion of electricity grids and measures for more flexibility will cost five trillion US dollars, while the electrification of industry and buildings through heat pumps and transport (e.g. e-charging networks) will cost $3.4 trillion. nib

CO2 removal: KfW and PIK present financial concept for discussion

In order to finance the necessary future CO2 removals from the atmosphere, they could be integrated into existing emissions trading systems. A “yet-to-be-founded European institution”, a kind of central bank for CO2 certificates, would then ensure that trading works well. This is what the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and KfW propose in a joint discussion paper.

The paper states that new governance and financial structures are needed in order to scale CO2 removals to the extent required in the future. PIK and KfW describe possible ways to establish them. Promotional banks such as KfW could therefore make a decisive contribution to market development, for example through “early purchase programs and risk assumption”. PIK Director Ottmar Edenhofer and KfW CEO Stefan Wintels plan to present their proposal next Thursday on the sidelines of COP29 in Baku.

Because CO2 emissions are falling too slowly to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees, the PIK expects that “a great deal of CO2 will have to be removed from the atmosphere” in the future – which could cost up to two percent of annual global economic output in 2050, depending on the scenario. However, the climate damage would be even more expensive. The necessary investments cannot be financed by public funds alone.

According to PIK, the annual climate damage worldwide could reach trillions of euros by 2050. The research institute puts the economic damage caused by the emission of one ton of CO2 at €1000 and more. For comparison: The price for the right to emit one ton of CO2 is currently around 65 euros in European emissions trading. ae

COP29: Germanwatch predicts little progress in the agrifood sector

No significant progress is expected in the areas of agriculture and food security at the COP29 World Climate Conference in Baku, which began yesterday. This forecast was made by the non-governmental organization Germanwatch in its briefing “Food systems at COP29”. It states that the potential of both sectors for climate action is still not being sufficiently taken into account. Furthermore, a global target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is missing.

Food systems are responsible for up to a third of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, writes the NGO. Binding and ambitious measures for a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions are therefore essential. Furthermore, a resilient design of food systems with regard to food security, sustainability and compliance with planetary boundaries and human rights is necessary to adapt to climate change.

Financing plan for food transition fails to materialize

Germanwatch notes that previous approaches and efforts in this regard are far from sufficient. In 2019 and 2020, only four percent of global climate finance went to the agriculture and food sector. It is crucial that the international community also sets a sub-target for financing the transformation of global food systems when agreeing on a new global climate financing target. However, this is not to be expected at COP29.

Whether and what specific goals will be formulated for the agrifood sector at COP29 will become clear this week and next. The Food, Agriculture and Water Day will take place on Nov. 19, where initiatives from the COP presidency and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) will be presented. kih

Climate finance: NGO calls for more funds for conflict areas

At the start of the UN climate summit, the NGO International Rescue Committee (IRC) is pushing for international climate financing to be geared more towards the needs of people in conflict areas. IRC is calling on the delegations in Baku to:

provide more funding for resilience, adaptation and forward-looking measures in conflict regions,
focus more strongly on climate financing for “underserved population groups” and
give priority to cooperation with “local organizations led by women or other marginalized groups“.