Following yesterday’s Table.Alert on the new texts at COP29, we are starting the weekend on a more relaxed note today – at least until something decisive happens again in Baku. Nico Beckert has taken a closer look at the debate on new donors in climate financing. Several calculations show that new donor countries would not increase the size of the pot that much. Instead, there would be other, more productive sources to better finance climate action and adaptation in poorer countries.
Many countries on the African continent also need the money. They are particularly vulnerable to climate damage, and the debt burden also makes it difficult to make the necessary investments. Their position in the UN climate negotiations is also weakened, with some countries even having to resort to “mercenary negotiators”, writes Christian von Hiller – and presents an idea on how to increase the size of the funding pie.
Our team in Baku also earned a cake after the summit. As soon as they are back in Berlin, we will celebrate today’s anniversary edition. For now, we hope you enjoy the 200th Climate.Table – here’s to many more issues!
Expanding the donor base to finance climate action and adaptation in poorer countries is one of the core objectives of Germany and the EU at COP29. “We can’t write any bad cheques here,” said Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Friday. “We can only meet the climate challenges financially if we significantly expand the donor base,” explained Baerbock with a view to “new major emitters who can afford it”.
Some new donor candidates, such as China, are now willing to compromise. However, Arab states continue to reject the demand. Many calculations show that an expansion of the donor base would not generate too much new money for climate financing – other sources of finance could be more productive. The existing donor states are also aware of this. They are more interested in sending a political signal, say observers.
Currently, 23 countries and the EU (Annex II countries) provide the majority of international climate financing. Other countries contribute to climate financing with voluntary payments. However, the main responsibility of the 23 Annex II states was already established in 1992. Since then, the world has changed considerably: Countries such as China, South Korea, Taiwan and some other emerging economies have experienced rapid economic growth and their per capita emissions have risen sharply. This is why Germany, the USA, Canada and Switzerland, for example, are demanding that rich emerging countries also contribute to climate financing.
How large their share would be depends on the choice of calculation parameters: how wealthy they are now and how large their historical emissions are. Depending on which indicators – for example GDP or GDP per capita and/or historical emissions from a certain year – are chosen, the results are slightly different. However, in all scenarios, new contributors would not make too much of a difference:
In addition, some countries are already contributing to climate financing on a voluntary basis. China, for example, contributes $3.8 to $4.5 billion annually. South Korea ($786 million), India ($765 million), Brazil ($529 million) and Saudi Arabia ($496 million) have also given or mobilized significant sums. Counting these voluntary payments towards official climate financing would only increase the total amount on paper.
According to Kowalzig, the existing donor states are aware that the participation of new donors would bring together relatively little new money. According to observers, the existing donors are more concerned with sending a political signal that “comparable countries should also contribute comparably”.
A much larger share than the expansion of the donor base could come from new sources of finance for climate financing and debt relief:
An “internal financial target” of 250 billion US dollars for developing countries by 2035, plus an overarching target of 1.3 trillion US dollars per year, which includes private investment: When concrete figures appeared in the drafts for a final text for the first time at this COP29 on Friday afternoon, key negotiators from African countries reacted with rejection.
Ali Mohamed, Chair of the African Group, called the 250 billion US dollars “completely unacceptable and unsuitable for implementing the Paris Climate Agreement”. Negotiator Alpha Kaloga wrote on X that the proposal was a joke. At COP28 in Dubai, the African countries had already found it difficult to push through their positions on the global adaptation target. The reason behind this is that African countries are structurally disadvantaged at climate summits.
20 heads of state, seven vice presidents and four prime ministers from Africa have traveled to Baku in Azerbaijan for COP29. Although the list of countries is long, the African presence remains relatively small. Delegations from Africa make up only 12.1 percent of the 67,000 participants. However, according to the latest figures from the Federal Statistical Office, the continent accounts for 19 percent of the world’s population.
However, François Gemenne, professor at the University of Liège, believes that the African countries’ weakness in negotiating lies in their composition. The climate discussions have become so complex that many governments are overwhelmed, especially if they are unable to employ the necessary experts on a permanent basis.
Developing countries are therefore often forced to rely on the expertise of NGOs or hire external consultants. “These mercenary negotiators, mostly from the West, hire out their services to countries that want them and often don’t have their own specialized diplomats,” says Gemenne. As a result, their loyalty changes depending on the client.
Another point of criticism is the export of emissions: Europe in particular has relocated highly polluting industries such as mining, steel processing, aluminum production and the refinement of industrial raw materials in general to India, China and developing countries.
This issue does not appear to be a high priority for the German government. The latest figures from the Federal Statistical Office, as of 2024, relate to the year 2015, according to which Germany imported 506,000 tons of CO2 in 2015. In 2000, this figure was only 379,000 tons, a cumulative increase of 33.5 percent in 15 years. The largest share of carbon dioxide imports in 2015 was caused by industry, which imported 381,000 tons of CO2 inputs – caused by products that were manufactured abroad for German industry.
Africa is particularly hard hit by climate change. There is a lack of rainwater retention basins, dykes, forests and hedges to protect against erosion as well as infrastructure for resource-efficient agriculture. The West mainly grants loans to Africa. However, infrastructure that protects against climate change often does not generate any revenue that could be used to service the loans.
Gemenne believes that extending emissions trading to consumers in industrialized countries, for example, could be a way out. Consumers in the Global North who cause high CO2 emissions would have to buy carbon credits from people in the Global South who cause fewer CO2 emissions. However, extending global emissions trading to consumers has so far failed due to resistance from the Global North. Collaboration: Alexandra Endres
Following yesterday’s Table.Alert on the new texts at COP29, we are starting the weekend on a more relaxed note today – at least until something decisive happens again in Baku. Nico Beckert has taken a closer look at the debate on new donors in climate financing. Several calculations show that new donor countries would not increase the size of the pot that much. Instead, there would be other, more productive sources to better finance climate action and adaptation in poorer countries.
Many countries on the African continent also need the money. They are particularly vulnerable to climate damage, and the debt burden also makes it difficult to make the necessary investments. Their position in the UN climate negotiations is also weakened, with some countries even having to resort to “mercenary negotiators”, writes Christian von Hiller – and presents an idea on how to increase the size of the funding pie.
Our team in Baku also earned a cake after the summit. As soon as they are back in Berlin, we will celebrate today’s anniversary edition. For now, we hope you enjoy the 200th Climate.Table – here’s to many more issues!
Expanding the donor base to finance climate action and adaptation in poorer countries is one of the core objectives of Germany and the EU at COP29. “We can’t write any bad cheques here,” said Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock on Friday. “We can only meet the climate challenges financially if we significantly expand the donor base,” explained Baerbock with a view to “new major emitters who can afford it”.
Some new donor candidates, such as China, are now willing to compromise. However, Arab states continue to reject the demand. Many calculations show that an expansion of the donor base would not generate too much new money for climate financing – other sources of finance could be more productive. The existing donor states are also aware of this. They are more interested in sending a political signal, say observers.
Currently, 23 countries and the EU (Annex II countries) provide the majority of international climate financing. Other countries contribute to climate financing with voluntary payments. However, the main responsibility of the 23 Annex II states was already established in 1992. Since then, the world has changed considerably: Countries such as China, South Korea, Taiwan and some other emerging economies have experienced rapid economic growth and their per capita emissions have risen sharply. This is why Germany, the USA, Canada and Switzerland, for example, are demanding that rich emerging countries also contribute to climate financing.
How large their share would be depends on the choice of calculation parameters: how wealthy they are now and how large their historical emissions are. Depending on which indicators – for example GDP or GDP per capita and/or historical emissions from a certain year – are chosen, the results are slightly different. However, in all scenarios, new contributors would not make too much of a difference:
In addition, some countries are already contributing to climate financing on a voluntary basis. China, for example, contributes $3.8 to $4.5 billion annually. South Korea ($786 million), India ($765 million), Brazil ($529 million) and Saudi Arabia ($496 million) have also given or mobilized significant sums. Counting these voluntary payments towards official climate financing would only increase the total amount on paper.
According to Kowalzig, the existing donor states are aware that the participation of new donors would bring together relatively little new money. According to observers, the existing donors are more concerned with sending a political signal that “comparable countries should also contribute comparably”.
A much larger share than the expansion of the donor base could come from new sources of finance for climate financing and debt relief:
An “internal financial target” of 250 billion US dollars for developing countries by 2035, plus an overarching target of 1.3 trillion US dollars per year, which includes private investment: When concrete figures appeared in the drafts for a final text for the first time at this COP29 on Friday afternoon, key negotiators from African countries reacted with rejection.
Ali Mohamed, Chair of the African Group, called the 250 billion US dollars “completely unacceptable and unsuitable for implementing the Paris Climate Agreement”. Negotiator Alpha Kaloga wrote on X that the proposal was a joke. At COP28 in Dubai, the African countries had already found it difficult to push through their positions on the global adaptation target. The reason behind this is that African countries are structurally disadvantaged at climate summits.
20 heads of state, seven vice presidents and four prime ministers from Africa have traveled to Baku in Azerbaijan for COP29. Although the list of countries is long, the African presence remains relatively small. Delegations from Africa make up only 12.1 percent of the 67,000 participants. However, according to the latest figures from the Federal Statistical Office, the continent accounts for 19 percent of the world’s population.
However, François Gemenne, professor at the University of Liège, believes that the African countries’ weakness in negotiating lies in their composition. The climate discussions have become so complex that many governments are overwhelmed, especially if they are unable to employ the necessary experts on a permanent basis.
Developing countries are therefore often forced to rely on the expertise of NGOs or hire external consultants. “These mercenary negotiators, mostly from the West, hire out their services to countries that want them and often don’t have their own specialized diplomats,” says Gemenne. As a result, their loyalty changes depending on the client.
Another point of criticism is the export of emissions: Europe in particular has relocated highly polluting industries such as mining, steel processing, aluminum production and the refinement of industrial raw materials in general to India, China and developing countries.
This issue does not appear to be a high priority for the German government. The latest figures from the Federal Statistical Office, as of 2024, relate to the year 2015, according to which Germany imported 506,000 tons of CO2 in 2015. In 2000, this figure was only 379,000 tons, a cumulative increase of 33.5 percent in 15 years. The largest share of carbon dioxide imports in 2015 was caused by industry, which imported 381,000 tons of CO2 inputs – caused by products that were manufactured abroad for German industry.
Africa is particularly hard hit by climate change. There is a lack of rainwater retention basins, dykes, forests and hedges to protect against erosion as well as infrastructure for resource-efficient agriculture. The West mainly grants loans to Africa. However, infrastructure that protects against climate change often does not generate any revenue that could be used to service the loans.
Gemenne believes that extending emissions trading to consumers in industrialized countries, for example, could be a way out. Consumers in the Global North who cause high CO2 emissions would have to buy carbon credits from people in the Global South who cause fewer CO2 emissions. However, extending global emissions trading to consumers has so far failed due to resistance from the Global North. Collaboration: Alexandra Endres
