Olusegun Ariyo
Adaptation experts from Africa and the Global South have contested the text on Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the draft text of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), describing them as insufficient and underwhelming for lacking clear targets on adaptation and loss and damage and for including ‘‘extreme proposals’’ that go against the Paris Agreement.
The experts have also faulted the text for failing to link the GGA and the NCQG to climate finance. Overall, the text falls short of expectations on many fronts for a ‘‘finance COP’’, they say.
Millions of communities in the Global South have borne the harshest effects of climate change, including ferocious floods, dreadful droughts and cataclysmic cyclones.
Many had hoped that this COP29 would yield the much-needed finance to enable populations in vulnerable countries to adapt to and build resilience against climate shocks.
● Lacks a specific figure on the climate finance goal
● Lacks the quantum of the provision and mobilisation goal
● Lacks clear targets for adaptation and loss and damage
● Includes proposals that violate the principles of the Paris Agreement
● Fails to mention women as a vulnerable segment of society on social inclusion
● Contains weak statements like grant financing being used for adaptation and loss and damage ‘‘to the largest extent possible’’
● Lack of linkage between the GGA text and the draft on the NCQG
● Fails to connect resources to solutions like the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience.
In a reaction to the new text on the NCQG on climate finance, Mohamed Adow, executive director of Power Shift Africa, called it a blank cheque and asked developed countries to put actual figures on the table.
According to him, it is only by putting specific numbers to the goal that negotiations at COP29 will move forward smoothly.
He said: “The new text rightly diagnoses the climate problem, including the required finance for adaptation and energy transition, but glaringly omits what the rich countries will actually provide to developing countries. The elephant in the room is the lack of specific numbers in the text. This is the ‘finance COP’. We came here to talk about money. You measure money with numbers. We need a cheque but all we have right now is a blank piece of paper.
The text includes some important signals on grant-based financing, and the need to avoid debt inducing instruments. Developed countries now urgently need to fill in the blanks and put their finance card on the table to move the negotiations forward.”
Amy Giliam Thorp, Senior Adaptation and Resilience Policy Advisor, Power Shift Africa, said: ‘‘The latest NCQG text falls far short of expectations for a ‘finance COP’, particularly on adaptation and loss and damage. Without clear, quantified goals with no sub-goals for adaptation, mitigation or Loss & Damage, developed countries have glaringly failed in their leadership role at this COP. While the text mentions grant-based finance and non-debt instruments, the language lacks the strength needed to drive real adaptation action.
“Alarmingly, it remains silent on financing the Global Goal on Adaptation and the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. The NCQG must include a quantified adaptation sub-goal and a strong reference to the finance needed to achieve GGA targets lest adaptation finance is deprioritised again.’’
Juma Ignatius, Senior Adaptation Policy Advisor, Africa Group of Negotiators, said: ‘‘Even as we come to the homestretch of COP29, we must not forget that the Global Goal on Adaptation remains a key priority. The means of implementation (MoI) is crucial for the full implementation of the GGA targets in line with the commitments of the climate dialogue. Developed countries have an obligation to provide the means to implement climate action by providing finance that is adequate, predictable and based on grants.
“All financing for adaptation must also be compatible with and responsive to the evolving needs of developing countries. This COP was supposed to bring parity between adaptation and mitigation. We did not get that.’’
Cristina Rumbaitis, Senior Adaptation and Resilience Advisor, UN Foundation, said: ‘‘The text is very poor and disappointing, especially on adaptation. First, the floor for adaptation is out. Secondly, there is no reference to the Global Goal on Adaptation or the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience. Thirdly, there is only language around balancing between mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage. This could further reduce funding for adaptation.
“There is some good language on qualitative elements and calls for a floor for adaptation for LDCs and SIDs from all relevant actors and financial mechanisms. There are also very weak statements like “grant financing should be used for adaptation and loss and damage to the largest extent possible”. We had hoped for more.”
Bertha Argueta, Senior Advisor, Climate Finance and Development, Germanwatch, said: ‘‘The text presented is still far from the outcome we had hoped for from this COP. It lacks the key elements of the quantum of the provision and mobilisation goal. Without this key piece of the puzzle, very little progress can be made elsewhere. Developing countries have put their proposal on the table, but developed countries are still holding back, making a compromise difficult to reach.
“Clear targets for adaptation and loss and damage are also missing. However, there is still time to work on a goal that respects the Paris Agreement; a goal that is responsive to the needs and priorities of developing countries, particularly for adaptation and loss and damage.’’
Lina Yassin, Adaptation Negotiator, IED, said: ‘‘It is deeply concerning to see the NCQG missing from the GGA text. This COP process has turned its back on the very communities these climate negotiations are meant to protect and provide for. How can we not connect resources to real solutions like the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience at a ‘finance COP’? Without this link, we risk walking away from COP29 with empty promises while vulnerable communities in Africa and elsewhere in the Global South continue to suffer the harshest consequences of the climate crisis.”
Ndivile Mokoena, Project Coordinator, Gender CC, said: “From the text, it looks like developing countries might have to spend their resources to finance climate adaptation. The language on gender and support for vulnerable members of society is also very weak. Women take care of their families, communities and environment. Shockingly, however, women are not mentioned in the paragraph on social inclusion. The context-specific nature of adaptation action and national circumstances have not been recognised either. The goal and vision of this text are not clear, and neither is the timeframe.’’
Fredrick Otieno, Programmes Associate, Power Shift Africa, said: ‘‘Adaptation has been relegated to the backburner in the climate discourse and in financing. As a result, whatever quantum Parties will agree on may not resolve the endemic underfinancing of adaptation. The current GGA text lacks a clear linkage with the draft on the NCQG. It appears that negotiators from Global North consigned all finance items, including the means of implementation (MoI), to the NCQG.
“It is equally disturbing that the current text lacks a specific figure on the climate finance goal. This puts ambitious climate action in jeopardy. Only indicators for tracking finance flows towards the GGA targets would catalyse more ambitious adaptation investments.’’
