The essential thing comes after article 55, where between the periphrasis and a parenthesis, plus the other estimates of needs, the figures of how much will really have to be allocated are finally set. The numbers revolve around 1.3 billion annually, for terms ranging between five years and a decade. The good news is that China, one of the main negotiators, will support much of the figure. The decisions made in the coming days and any landing zone around the trillion will be considered a resounding success. Within the draft there are versions that attempt to reserve a certain quota for small islands, which is around 39,000 million, and 290,000 million for poor countries.
There are still many issues to be resolved, such as those related to the type of financing: non-refundable public funds or loans with subsidized interest. It remains to be determined how much should be allocated to investments, how it will be divided between mitigation, adaptation and losses. We hope to have a response on November 22, the day COP29 will conclude.
Supporters and opponents
“There are no advances in the content, but in the method. In general, it is a more detailed document than the previous one, containing more options, good and bad, but also elements related to our key themes,” says Chiara Martinelli, director of a network of 180 NGOs, Climate Action Network Europe. He adds that there are figures, but a definition of climate finance is still missing: “The language on rights, the reference to fossil fuels and big polluters are good, however the loss and damage section can be improved.”
For her part, Eleonora Cogo, expert in international financial reforms of the think tank Ecco is not satisfied: “The new text is a step backwards because it puts all options back on the table. Next week the ministers come and will need a text with few open issues to resolve. The amount of the new objective will undoubtedly be one of them.” Arunaba Ghosh, head of the NGO Energy, Environment and Water Council, suggests that the text on the NCQG, with plenty of brackets and options, is indicative that the parties maintain their positions: “There is still a lot of work to be done to reach an agreement on key aspects such as quantumthe quality of the planned financing and the deadlines. The NCQG should be tailored to the needs of developing countries and should amount to at least $1 trillion a year, consisting mainly of grants and concessional financing. It states that climate finance should be “concessional, catalytic, affordable and credible.” “.
There is no shortage of those who describe the draft as a “disaster”, as does an anonymous negotiator. Claudia Concaro, delegate of the think tank Italian Climate Network at COP29, underlines the key role of the political groups arriving for the closure: “At this moment, the visions on the structure of the NCQG are so distant between developed and developing countries that they are irreconcilable without dialogue at levels superiors”. It is important to mention that many leaders have stayed away from the headquarters in Baku in recent days.
On Wednesday afternoon, delegates met again to ask the co-chairs who govern the meaning of the text, to prepare a shorter document. The new draft could keep all options present, eliminating any duplication. Support comes from the High Ambition Coalition (HAC), which published a document reiterating the urgency of finding a trillion for climate. Among the signatories are the European Union, France, Canada and Germany.
Article originally published in WIRED Italy. Adapted by Alondra Flores.
#COP29 #calculations #money #invest #climate
