The draft final texts for COP29 presented by the Presidency on Friday afternoon not only propose how a new global climate finance target should go hand in hand with emissions reduction – but they could also reshuffle the cards in global climate policy. They turn the traditional frontline position of the “Global North” against the “Global South” into the US/EU/China alliance against the rest of the world.
The groups that are particularly committed to protecting vulnerable states – the EU and China – support a text that only marginally addresses the concerns of the poorest. And the potential Baku deal could herald a new era of Chinese dominance with the help of the EU following the expected withdrawal of the USA from international climate action.
The texts presented by the presidency following consultations with the countries largely correspond to the ideas of the EU and the USA. Without China’s silent approval, they would hardly have been possible. And according to negotiating circles, many large developing countries have at least not rejected them.
The EU and the USA can live with the financial target of $250 billion, even if the US says it requires “more ambition and extraordinary reach”. Countries such as China, South Korea and the Gulf States can also be satisfied with the fact that their contributions to climate financing should only count towards the climate target to the extent that they are channeled through multilateral banks and as they wish. Brazil, on the other hand, has proposed increasing the financial target for 2030 to $300 billion and for 2035 to $390 billion.
The most vulnerable states are unhappy with the draft. The island states (AOSIS) have declared that they are “deeply disappointed” and that the text is “unacceptable“. After all, they had demanded a minimum of $39 billion in climate financing for the small island states and $220 billion for the least developed countries.
The African negotiators also find the draft “totally unacceptable”, as it does not open the way to 1.5 degrees and $400 billion would be needed for adaptation alone. “Furthermore, under this wording, the developed countries are no longer responsible for financing,” criticized Kenyan climate ambassador Ali Mohamed. In initial reactions, environmental and human rights groups are outraged that the sum for climate aid is not higher and that the protection mechanisms, for example for adaptation and loss and damage, are not much more firmly anchored.
In fact, the draft is surprisingly weak on the key issues for poor countries – adaptation and Loss and Damage. While the financial text recognizes that grants and cheap loans are needed, especially for adaptation and Loss and Damage, “particularly for the most vulnerable countries” – it does not reserve any sum or quota for the vulnerable and does not mention a large sum overall. Loss and Damage, on the other hand, is only mentioned in one paragraph.
What’s more: According to calculations by Oxfam financial expert Jan Kowalzig, the “$250 billion in 2035 corresponds roughly to the $100 billion from 2009 in terms of purchasing power, if inflation and the new calculation methods for the development banks are taken into account”.
This means that the poorest people feel left in the lurch. A text that is so “unbalanced” between the different interests of the countries would probably trigger a storm of indignation at a plenary session of the conference. However, there was no such plenary session until Friday evening local time in Baku – the main negotiator of the presidency, Yalchin Rafiyev, stated that negotiations would continue with the individual states to make “minor changes” to the text. The most likely course of action: The presidency will consult with all groups throughout the night and compile a new text from the suggestions on Saturday morning. It will then have to have it adopted in plenary at some point.
In a new and final text, there could well be improvements from the developing countries’ perspective – in terms of the total amount, adaptation or Loss and Damage. Ultimately, however, the small states have the short end of the stick: Their only power option is to wage a major battle in plenary and reject the entire text. But that would leave them without any deal and funding. If the EU and China continue to support the paper, they will lack their protective powers. This is also a bitter realization for the poorest countries.
Against this backdrop, the future of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) would also be completely uncertain. It has repeatedly brought together progressive countries from the global North and South to fight for greater ambition. The members from AOSIS, small island states, Africa and South America could feel let down by the EU and the members of the Umbrella Group and the Environmental Integrity Group EIG.
While German Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock has declared that Europe is “leading from the front” in the climate process, the opposite is true for China: The largest current CO2 emitter is in an inglorious last place in climate diplomacy. Following the expected withdrawal of the USA under Donald Trump, the world’s leading exporter of green technologies is left with a global market that is further boosted in this agreement by the areas of mitigation and adaptation and the reaffirmation of the Dubai targets to triple renewables and double efficiency.
In turn, Beijing can participate in the financing of global climate programs when it suits – and otherwise watch as its economic competitors struggle to find the money for the promised $250 billion from their tight state budgets. This in turn will become an even greater burden, especially for the Europeans, after the expected end of US payments.
However, if the EU wants to stay on the ball when it comes to climate policy worldwide and implement its Green Deal, for example, it will have to cooperate with China – on Beijing’s terms. After all, raw materials and green technologies from China are indispensable. Against this backdrop, it remains to be seen whether the Europeans will be able to maintain trade barriers related to climate policy, such as CBAM or tariffs on the import of Chinese EVs.
On the official last day of the conference, concrete progress was made for the first time at COP29. On Friday afternoon, the Azerbaijani Presidency presented draft texts on climate finance, mitigation, just transition and the global adaptation goal.
The texts reflect the positions of the industrialized countries particularly strongly. The expanded donor base and a greater role for development banks are reflected in them. The demands of the EU in particular were largely taken into account – the criticism from the Global South, which had hoped for a higher sum for climate financing in particular, was correspondingly strong.
Details can be found in the text on climate finance (NCQG):
When it comes to reducing emissions, the picture is ambivalent. On the one hand, the latest text version of the Mitigation Work Program (MWP) contains no reference back to the results of the first Global Stocktake (GST) last year in Dubai and thus to the move away from fossil fuels. Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch, described this as a “disaster”. The MWP, which had anchored emission reductions in the UNFCCC process since COP27, was thus effectively dead.
However, there is another mitigation text, the so-called UAE Dialogue, which deals with the implementation of the Global Stocktake. It also bears the clear signature of the EU, because:
The first concrete targets for implementing the Global Stocktake are even included as an option:
However, the “no text” option is also included, which means that further negotiations will focus on whether there is consensus on the paragraph on grid and storage expansion. Both developing and industrialized countries could probably live with the text option. It remains to be seen whether emerging economies, which fear new obligations for their own climate targets, can agree to this.
The new text also contains slight progress on the Global Goal of Adaptation:
The Just Transition Work Program was launched at COP27 and is designed to ensure that the social and economic challenges of the transition to a low-carbon economy are met fairly. In Baku, the Just Transition Work Program (JTWP) will be further developed to promote equitable and inclusive pathways to achieve the climate goals. The new text includes:
The draft final texts for COP29 presented by the Presidency on Friday afternoon not only propose how a new global climate finance target should go hand in hand with emissions reduction – but they could also reshuffle the cards in global climate policy. They turn the traditional frontline position of the “Global North” against the “Global South” into the US/EU/China alliance against the rest of the world.
The groups that are particularly committed to protecting vulnerable states – the EU and China – support a text that only marginally addresses the concerns of the poorest. And the potential Baku deal could herald a new era of Chinese dominance with the help of the EU following the expected withdrawal of the USA from international climate action.
The texts presented by the presidency following consultations with the countries largely correspond to the ideas of the EU and the USA. Without China’s silent approval, they would hardly have been possible. And according to negotiating circles, many large developing countries have at least not rejected them.
The EU and the USA can live with the financial target of $250 billion, even if the US says it requires “more ambition and extraordinary reach”. Countries such as China, South Korea and the Gulf States can also be satisfied with the fact that their contributions to climate financing should only count towards the climate target to the extent that they are channeled through multilateral banks and as they wish. Brazil, on the other hand, has proposed increasing the financial target for 2030 to $300 billion and for 2035 to $390 billion.
The most vulnerable states are unhappy with the draft. The island states (AOSIS) have declared that they are “deeply disappointed” and that the text is “unacceptable“. After all, they had demanded a minimum of $39 billion in climate financing for the small island states and $220 billion for the least developed countries.
The African negotiators also find the draft “totally unacceptable”, as it does not open the way to 1.5 degrees and $400 billion would be needed for adaptation alone. “Furthermore, under this wording, the developed countries are no longer responsible for financing,” criticized Kenyan climate ambassador Ali Mohamed. In initial reactions, environmental and human rights groups are outraged that the sum for climate aid is not higher and that the protection mechanisms, for example for adaptation and loss and damage, are not much more firmly anchored.
In fact, the draft is surprisingly weak on the key issues for poor countries – adaptation and Loss and Damage. While the financial text recognizes that grants and cheap loans are needed, especially for adaptation and Loss and Damage, “particularly for the most vulnerable countries” – it does not reserve any sum or quota for the vulnerable and does not mention a large sum overall. Loss and Damage, on the other hand, is only mentioned in one paragraph.
What’s more: According to calculations by Oxfam financial expert Jan Kowalzig, the “$250 billion in 2035 corresponds roughly to the $100 billion from 2009 in terms of purchasing power, if inflation and the new calculation methods for the development banks are taken into account”.
This means that the poorest people feel left in the lurch. A text that is so “unbalanced” between the different interests of the countries would probably trigger a storm of indignation at a plenary session of the conference. However, there was no such plenary session until Friday evening local time in Baku – the main negotiator of the presidency, Yalchin Rafiyev, stated that negotiations would continue with the individual states to make “minor changes” to the text. The most likely course of action: The presidency will consult with all groups throughout the night and compile a new text from the suggestions on Saturday morning. It will then have to have it adopted in plenary at some point.
In a new and final text, there could well be improvements from the developing countries’ perspective – in terms of the total amount, adaptation or Loss and Damage. Ultimately, however, the small states have the short end of the stick: Their only power option is to wage a major battle in plenary and reject the entire text. But that would leave them without any deal and funding. If the EU and China continue to support the paper, they will lack their protective powers. This is also a bitter realization for the poorest countries.
Against this backdrop, the future of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC) would also be completely uncertain. It has repeatedly brought together progressive countries from the global North and South to fight for greater ambition. The members from AOSIS, small island states, Africa and South America could feel let down by the EU and the members of the Umbrella Group and the Environmental Integrity Group EIG.
While German Minister for Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock has declared that Europe is “leading from the front” in the climate process, the opposite is true for China: The largest current CO2 emitter is in an inglorious last place in climate diplomacy. Following the expected withdrawal of the USA under Donald Trump, the world’s leading exporter of green technologies is left with a global market that is further boosted in this agreement by the areas of mitigation and adaptation and the reaffirmation of the Dubai targets to triple renewables and double efficiency.
In turn, Beijing can participate in the financing of global climate programs when it suits – and otherwise watch as its economic competitors struggle to find the money for the promised $250 billion from their tight state budgets. This in turn will become an even greater burden, especially for the Europeans, after the expected end of US payments.
However, if the EU wants to stay on the ball when it comes to climate policy worldwide and implement its Green Deal, for example, it will have to cooperate with China – on Beijing’s terms. After all, raw materials and green technologies from China are indispensable. Against this backdrop, it remains to be seen whether the Europeans will be able to maintain trade barriers related to climate policy, such as CBAM or tariffs on the import of Chinese EVs.
On the official last day of the conference, concrete progress was made for the first time at COP29. On Friday afternoon, the Azerbaijani Presidency presented draft texts on climate finance, mitigation, just transition and the global adaptation goal.
The texts reflect the positions of the industrialized countries particularly strongly. The expanded donor base and a greater role for development banks are reflected in them. The demands of the EU in particular were largely taken into account – the criticism from the Global South, which had hoped for a higher sum for climate financing in particular, was correspondingly strong.
Details can be found in the text on climate finance (NCQG):
When it comes to reducing emissions, the picture is ambivalent. On the one hand, the latest text version of the Mitigation Work Program (MWP) contains no reference back to the results of the first Global Stocktake (GST) last year in Dubai and thus to the move away from fossil fuels. Christoph Bals, Political Director of Germanwatch, described this as a “disaster”. The MWP, which had anchored emission reductions in the UNFCCC process since COP27, was thus effectively dead.
However, there is another mitigation text, the so-called UAE Dialogue, which deals with the implementation of the Global Stocktake. It also bears the clear signature of the EU, because:
The first concrete targets for implementing the Global Stocktake are even included as an option:
However, the “no text” option is also included, which means that further negotiations will focus on whether there is consensus on the paragraph on grid and storage expansion. Both developing and industrialized countries could probably live with the text option. It remains to be seen whether emerging economies, which fear new obligations for their own climate targets, can agree to this.
The new text also contains slight progress on the Global Goal of Adaptation:
The Just Transition Work Program was launched at COP27 and is designed to ensure that the social and economic challenges of the transition to a low-carbon economy are met fairly. In Baku, the Just Transition Work Program (JTWP) will be further developed to promote equitable and inclusive pathways to achieve the climate goals. The new text includes:
