- The PACJA has asserted that without sufficient financial flows to support adaptation and losses and damages, the lives of millions are hanging in the balance.
- This funding gap is critical for addressing urgent adaptation needs and supporting communities that are already suffering from climate impacts.
- As COP30 draws near in Belém, Brazil, advocates are calling for a recommitment to ambitious climate finance that meets actual country needs.
As the dust settles on COP29, tagged the “finance COP,” the outcomes have generated widespread outrage and disappointment, most particularly among African nations and those with interest in climate justice.
The Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) has termed the outcome a “flop,” noting that rich countries have, once again, evaded their responsibilities while vulnerable countries bear the brunt of climate change.
“As we absorb the outcome of the all-stakes COP29, dubbed the “finance COP”, it is reverberating across mountains, valleys, oceans, rivers, and all over the world that, once again, rich countries have their way – delaying action, and escaping their duty to pay what is due to the victims of their actions,” the alliance said in a statement dated November 25, 2024..
Africa is especially susceptible to climate change effects: from drastic droughts and floods to food insecurities. According to projections, if unchecked, climate change will shave up to 4% off of Africa’s GDP by 2040 and a high of as much as 25% by 2100, with the accompanying exacerbation of poverty and instability across the continent.
The PACJA has asserted that without sufficient financial flows to support adaptation and losses and damages, the lives of millions are hanging in the balance.
These frustrations have been palpable in the just-ended COP29, with most developing countries’ representatives leaving feeling disillusioned by a lack of concrete commitments from wealthy nations.
The Least Developed Countries Group expressed their dissatisfaction, saying, “Once again, the countries most responsible for the climate crisis have failed us.” This reflects a bigger concern that global ambition is currently too low to handle the rapidly escalating climate crisis.
PACJA sees the newly agreed climate finance goal of at least USD300 billion or KSh31.9 trillion annually by 2035 as significantly inadequate compared to the USD1.3 trillion or KSh181.58 trillion that African and developing nations were advocating for.
This funding gap is critical for addressing urgent adaptation needs and supporting communities that are already suffering from climate impacts.
“The USD 300 billion Goal falls far short of the USD 1.3 trillion the African and developing countries were pushing for to address the gap in adaptation needs and climate funding for vulnerable people,” the statement reads.
PACJA notes that such financing will be sourced from diverse sources, contradicting the principles set in the Climate Change Convention and the Paris Agreement for public finance from developed countries.
This shift raises concerns that developing nations will be pushed deeper into debt as they struggle to meet rising development demands while combating climate change.
“Woefully, the money will come in many forms and sources, defeating the spirit of the principles of the Climate Change Convention and the Paris Agreement that calls for the provision of public finance by developed countries.
Clearly, developing countries are poised to sink deeper into debt as climate becomes a new source of debt as they grapple with rising development demands.
“No free lunch was what then Africa was pushed to, technically being pushed to clean the pollution mess of developed countries to access the much-desired climate finance. For a COP where justice, equity, reparations, and responding to the needs of climate-vulnerable people ruled the airwaves, this was a stab at the back. Moreso, the deal does not inspire hope for less developed countries who have suffered unjustly low access to climate finance due to their constrained fiscal space,” the alliance said, adding that the closing statement was hollow and hypocritical at best.
“Unfortunately, the decision on the carbon market was lauded in the COP29 Presidency closing speech as a breakthrough – a height of hypocrisy,” PACJA said.
COP29 negotiations were tense from the very start, especially with respect to Article 6 dealing with carbon markets. There, critics say, it distracts from real emission cuts while making poorer nations bear the unnecessary burdens of cleaning up the pollution created by the wealthy parts of the world.
“Article 6 has been messed up to centre the carbon market in the mobilisation of climate finance. This is a bold departure from the Paris Agreement, centrering carbon market in climate finance as opposed to their contribution to reducing emissions, a role this market has played with dismal performance with peaking emissions and violations of human rights,” noted the alliance.
To PACJA, this kind of approach is a betrayal of climate justice because it only serves to force Africa to “clean the pollution mess” of the developed nations to access much-needed climate finance.
The weakness of the outcomes from COP29 has left many in doubt over international climate negotiations. The process has been criticised for its tendency towards political expediency over meaningful action.
PACJA has promised to comprehensively analyse the negotiations in Baku and outline a way forward for its members and partners.
Despite these setbacks, a glimmer of hope does remain as civil society organisations keep up the pressure on developed countries to live up to their financial commitments under international agreements.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: From Alerts to Action: Unlocking the Power of Data to Combat Methane Emissions
As COP30 draws near in Belém, Brazil, advocates are calling for a recommitment to ambitious climate finance that meets actual country needs.
While COP29 managed to deliver some incremental progress on financial commitments, it still did not rise to the robust support that Africa and other developing regions deserve in the face of existential threats emanating from the unfolding climate crisis.
As calls for justice and equity echo louder than ever, it is now clear that future negotiations will have to prioritise the voices and needs of those most affected by this global crisis.
