- Governments of small island nations say UN deal won’t save the planet
- Carbon credits are “neo-colonialism”, critics say
- UN defends deal but concedes poor nations are unhappy
The $300 billion finance plan agreed at COP29 will not be enough to help poor and developing countries fight climate change, according to government ministers and delegates.
The annual UN meeting, held this year in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, ended with a controversial agreement that will see richer nations pay $300 billion (about £238.5 billion) a year to help poorer regions fight climate change.
However, the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) agreed at COP29 is a long way short of the $1.3 trillion that some had called for, and even less than the $500 billion that had been cited as the bare minimum developing countries would accept.
The NCGQ will see 23 of the largest economies in the world pay the sum of $300 billion between them to those most badly affected by climate change. Among the wealthier countries are the UK, Japan, the US and those in the EU.
The agreement was reached 24 hours beyond the official deadline after several countries, including those in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and some African states, threatened to leave without an agreement at all.
Despite accounting for less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, small island developing states are suffering disproportionately. About 65 million people live on small island developing states.
It is estimated that between 1970 and 2020, small island developing states lost about $153 billion (£121.3 billion) due to climate change and weather-related problems, including cyclones and rising sea levels.
This is a particularly alarming figure as the average annual GDP for small island and developing states is $13.7 billion (£10.8 billion).
Following the deal, AOSIS said it was “concerned” by the “lack of willingness to meet the needs of vulnerable developing countries”.
Central to the criticism is that the NCQG will allow wealthier countries, those responsible for most global emissions, to avoid helping nations which suffer the most from climate change.
Reacting to the agreement, the African Group of Negotiators described it as “too little, too late”.
Amb Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Special Envoy, was particularly scathing, describing the agreement as “totally unacceptable and inadequate” and predicted that it will lead to “loss of life in Africa and around the world”.
The Indian delegation were quoted as being “extremely disappointed”. Chandni Raina, an advisor with India’s Department of Economic Affairs, said in a speech at the end of the summit that the NCGQ was “a paltry sum” and “not something that will enable conducive climate action”.
“We are disappointed in the outcome which clearly brings out the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfill their responsibilities. We cannot accept it.”
Charan Jeet Singh, Fiji’s sugar minister, part of a 55-strong Fijian delegation, called for a fundamental change in the types of attendees at future climate summits and for , saying most delegates as a “financial burden to their respective countries” who are “wasting time”.
“In future we need to send a very lean team of professionals, experts and negotiators who are objective and can deliver their hard and clear message to COP30 come next year,” Singh explained.
Another member of the Fijian delegation was quoted describing the COP29 negotiations as “a very tedious process”.
Commonwealth Secretary-General, Rt Hon Patricia Scotland KC, said in her address to COP29 that she would continue to push for finance, to help small island states in their fight for climate justice:
“The fight against climate change is the fight of our lives,”
Reacting to the backlash against the NCQG, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, said budgets in wealthier nations were badly affected by inflation and said poorer and developing nations would have to compromise.
NGOs accuse rich countries of ‘climate colonialism’
Environmental bodies have joined the criticism describing the deal as “woefully inadequate” and accused wealthier nations of “climate colonialism”.
Greenpeace said the deal didn’t go nearly far enough to help ‘climate-vulnerable’ communities. Jasper Inventor, Head of COP29 Greenpeace Delegation in Baku said the NCQG was “woefully inadequate”.
Meena Raman, from Friends of the Earth Malaysia, described the deal as “an insult to developing nations” and accused rich countries of “abdicating their responsibilities” and “playing with the lives of the poor”.
Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead, said the climate finance deal “let the world down” and that it threatens to “set back global efforts to tackle the climate crisis”.
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network, described the summit as “the most horrendous climate negotiations in years” due to the “bad faith of developed countries”.
Defending the NCQD, Simon Stiell, executive director of UN Climate Change, said it will “keep the clean energy boom growing” and help all countries “share in its huge benefits”, although he did accept that some nations didn’t get the deal they were hoping for.
Anger over carbon credits
An area that attracted substantial criticism was the resolution to allow a voluntary carbon market, where rich countries and private businesses can trade carbon credits.
Carbon credits are designed to incentivise international cooperation in fighting climate change and having a market makes it possible for wealthier countries to let poorer ones meet eco-friendly targets.
Covered in Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, the voluntary market would allow companies to buy and sell carbon credits to offset their emissions.
However, it potentially allows some heavy greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters to buy the right to build fossil fuel projects in regions already suffering from climate change.
The UN doesn’t currently monitor the effects on the environment carbon credit trading would have, and it would rely on national and regional authorities to do so.
One of the provisions of Article 6.4 would see the eventual creation of a UN-backed body to regulate the voluntary carbon market.
Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, said the COP29 deal was “an insult” and accused the “global North” of “climate colonialism”.
“While our continent burns, floods, and starves from a crisis we didn’t create, wealthy nations offer pennies while pocketing billions in fossil fuel profits.”
Pan-African Political Strategist
Dr Lamfu Yengong, Greenpeace Africa’s Forest Campaigner described the carbon market agreements as “nothing but a neo-colonial scheme dressed up as climate action”.
“Our forests and lands are being eyed as convenient carbon dumps while fossil fuel companies continue their destructive business,” Dr Yengongs stated.
Kirtana Chandrasekaran, from Friends of the Earth International, said opening the door to the carbon market would have “disastrous impacts for communities and ecosystems” and risks human rights violations.
“The supposed ‘COP of climate finance’ has turned into the ‘COP of false solutions’, the terrible deal on finance destroys the notion of historical responsibility of the rich big polluting countries and pushes private debt creating finance,” Chandrasekaran said.
