One of the headline outcomes to emerge from COP30 was a new target to “at least triple” finance for climate adaptation in developing countries by 2035.
Vulnerable nations stress that they urgently need to strengthen their infrastructure as climate hazards intensify, but they struggle to attract funding for these efforts.
The new goal, which builds on a previous target agreed four years ago to double adaptation finance by 2025, was a central demand for many developing countries at the UN climate summit in Belém.
Yet, throughout the two-week negotiations, developed-country parties opposed new targets that would give them more financial obligations.
As a result of this opposition, the final target is less ambitious than the idea originally floated by developing countries, resulting in less pressure on developed countries to provide public funds.
This article looks at precisely what the final COP30 outcome does – and does not – say about tripling adaptation finance, as well as the implications for developing countries.
- 1) The final COP30 decision delayed the ‘tripling’ target by five years and added uncertainty
- 2) The new target is looser than the previous ‘doubling’ goal for adaptation finance
- 3) The target also falls far short of developing countries’ adaptation needs
1. The final COP30 decision delayed the ‘tripling’ target by five years and added uncertainty
At COP26 in Glasgow in 2021, a target was agreed for developed nations to double the amount of adaptation finance they would provide to developing countries by 2025.
This target has been broadly interpreted as approximately $40bn by 2025, using the agreed baseline of $18.8bn in 2019.
As of 2022, the latest year for which official data is available, annual adaptation finance from developed countries had reached $28.9bn. (Final confirmation of whether the target has been met will not come until 2027, due to the delay in climate-finance reporting.)
With the “doubling” target set to expire this year, some developing countries came to COP30 with the aim of agreeing on a new target.
The least-developed countries (LDCs) group called for “a tripling of grant-based adaptation finance by 2030 to at least $120bn”. They were backed by small-island states, the African group and some Latin American countries.
This proposal was included in the first draft of the “global mutirão“, the key overarching decision text produced by the COP30 presidency.
However, the text that ultimately emerged pushed the “tripling” deadline back to 2035. As the chart below shows, this delayed target could mean far less adaptation finance in the short term, due to developed countries taking longer to ramp up their contributions.
Lina Yassin, an adaptation advisor to the LDCs, tells Carbon Brief that this goal is “fundamentally out of step” with the obligation for developed countries to achieve a “balance” between adaptation and mitigation finance.
(This obligation is set out in the Paris Agreement, but, in practice, developed countries provide far more finance for mitigation initiatives, such as clean-energy projects. Adaptation finance has been around a third of the total in recent years and this would still be the case if the overall $300bn climate-finance and tripling adaptation finance targets are both met.)
The final text also removed a mention of 2025 as the baseline year, adding uncertainty as to what precisely the 2035 target means.
“The [LDCs] wanted a clear number, tied to a clear baseline year, that you can actually track and hold providers accountable for,” Yassin explains.
The text does allude to the “doubling” target agreed at COP26 in Glasgow, which some analysts say is an indicator of what the baseline should be.
“It is obviously deliberately vaguely written, but we think the reference to the Glasgow pledge means they should triple that pledge,” Gaia Larsen, director for climate finance access at the World Resources Institute (WRI), tells Carbon Brief.
2. The new target is looser than the previous ‘doubling’ goal for adaptation finance
The “doubling” target set at COP26 was based on adaptation finance “provided” by developed countries.
This means it exclusively comes as publicly funded grants and loans from many EU member states, the US, Japan and a handful of other nations, including finance they raise via multilateral development banks (MDBs) and funds.
The LDCs’ original proposal for the “tripling” goal was even more specific. It called for “grant-based finance”, meaning any loans would not be included.
Amid widespread cuts to aid budgets, notably in the US, developed countries have been unwilling to commit to new targets based solely on them providing public finance.
Instead, they stressed at COP30 that any new pledges should align with the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG) to raise $300bn by 2035, which was agreed last year. This is reflected in the final decision, which says the tripling target is “in the context of” the NCQG.
Unlike the COP26 goal, the NCQG covers finance from a variety of sources, including “mobilised” private finance and voluntary contributions from wealthier developing countries.
Assuming $120bn as the 2035 objective, WRI has estimated what its composition could be, based on the looser accounting allowed under the new adaptation-finance goal.
As the chart below shows, the institute estimates that more than a quarter of the target could be met by these new sources, with the rest coming from developed-country governments.
WRI assumes that MDBs will play a “critical role” in meeting the 2035 target, amid calls for them to triple their overall finance. More MDB funding would also automatically be counted, as the new adaptation goal includes MDB funds that are attributable to developing countries, as set out in the NCQG.
The WRI analysis also assumes a big increase in the amount of private finance for adaptation that is “mobilised” by public spending, scaling up significantly to $18bn by 2035.
Traditionally, it has been difficult to raise private investment for adaptation initiatives, as they provide less return on investment than clean-energy projects.
3. The target also falls far short of developing countries’ adaptation needs
The UN Environment Programme’s (UNEP) recent “adaptation gap” report estimates that developing countries’ adaptation investment requirements – based on modelled costs – will likely hit $310bn each year by 2035.
Developing countries have self-reported even higher financial “needs” in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs) submitted to the UN.
When added together, UNEP concludes these needs amount to $365bn each year for developing countries between 2023 and 2035.
(According to NRDC, most of this discrepancy comes from middle-income countries reporting significantly higher needs than the UNEP-modelled costs.)
As the chart below shows, the new COP30 target would not cover more than a third of these estimated needs by 2035.
Both domestic spending and private-sector investment that is independent of developed-country involvement are expected to play a role in meeting developing countries’ adaptation needs.
Nevertheless, UNEP states that the overarching climate-finance goals set by countries are “clearly insufficient” to close the adaptation-finance “gap”.
Even in a scenario based on the LDCs’ original proposal of tripling adaptation finance to $120bn by 2030, the UNEP report concluded that a “significant” gap would have remained.
The post Analysis: Why COP30’s ‘tripling adaptation finance’ target is less ambitious than it seems appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Why COP30’s ‘tripling adaptation finance’ target is less ambitious than it seems
A future powered by clean energy would be not only more affordable, but potentially more peaceful.
From our collaborating partner “Living on Earth,” public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by host Steve Curwood with Michael Klare, an emeritus professor of peace and security studies at Hampshire College.
In a Q&A with Climate Home News, the head of sustainability at global lighting company Signify explains how the firm is doubling down on its efforts to protect the climate and strengthen resilience.
In March, Signify launched its latest corporate sustainability programme, “Brighter Lives, Better World 2030”.
The programme is the third iteration of a project that started in 2016, aimed at shifting how the company – and its customers – can reduce their environmental impact.
It centres on enhanced targets to improve energy efficiency, cut greenhouse gas emissions and promote the circular economy. In addition, Signify has set itself a challenging goal to source 41% of its revenue from solutions “that support benefits beyond illumination” by the end of 2030, up from 31% in 2024. Those benefits include efficient food production and increased access to solar lighting.
Signify is aiming to save 60 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity for its customers; achieve a 35% reduction in the CO2 emissions intensity of its portfolio; and grow its circular product business from 10% to 27.5% of revenue.
Climate Home News spoke with the company’s global head of sustainability, Maurice Loosschilder, to find out how the Netherlands-based multinational plans to reach its targets despite a tough political landscape for green action.
Q: How does Signify’s new sustainability programme build on lessons learned from previous versions?
A: If we look back a little bit, it is a natural next step. Signify [formerly Philips Lighting] became a standalone company roughly 10 years ago and in 2016 we launched our first “Brighter Lives, Better World 2020” programme at the same time.
The first programme mirrored developments in the lighting industry and was very much based on our own operations: reaching 100% renewable electricity, zero waste to landfill in our manufacturing facilities, increasing the energy efficiency in our own portfolio.
Since then, we’ve moved on to think about our entire value chain and the wider social contributions we want our work to be making. But we still want to be thinking about how to improve our own business. Our continued target to double the amount of women in leadership positions is an example of that.
Q: Looking at the political climate, both in the US and Europe, there isn’t the same concern for environmental issues as there was a few years ago. Many corporates are perceived to be rolling back on their environmental commitments. How are you as a company navigating some of these challenges?
A: This is not something new. If we look back on the last five to 10 years, we’ve seen a lot of disruption and change in the market. We’ve had a global pandemic, supply chain disruptions, energy insecurity. At the same time we’ve seen the increased impacts of climate change and all of that is changing the dynamics of doing business right now.
I think these changes have really tested resilience – the resilience of companies, the resilience of people, the resilience of societies. We really believe that resilience is becoming more and more important to businesses right now. And if you look at what a resilient company is, it is one that decarbonises faster, invests in people, invests in circular solutions and makes its business model more circular. And that’s exactly what we have focused on. It’s about making sure we can cope, and help our customers cope, with changing market circumstances and the geopolitical tensions we see in the world.
Q: Turning to your own commitments, do you feel you have set the right balance between ambitious and achievable?
A: Yes, we strongly believe this programme is the right one for us and our customers, and has been informed by a thorough double-materiality assessment. It is built on three pillars: benefits beyond illumination, energy efficiency and resource efficiency. These are supported by new initiatives, such as Signify Circle, which will support professional customers with their circular economy ambitions.
If we just look at the first pillar, it’s about the positive impact that lighting brings, in terms of productivity, in terms of safety, in terms of food availability, health and well-being, and now we have added solar in there. This is what we mean by “benefits beyond illumination”.
Q: If we take one of your targets to save 60 TWh of electricity for your customers, that seems quite hard to work out. Do you find data availability to be an issue?
A: Data is a challenge in sustainability, but we have been measuring our avoided emissions for years, so we know the data requirements behind it. We’ve done all our homework and with that we have set this target.
The 60 TWh figure is about the annual electricity usage of Switzerland so it is a substantial amount. But it also reflects the role that lighting plays in general. If you look at a typical city, street lighting alone accounts for about 40% of electricity use. So the potential is enormous.
The International Energy Agency reports that about 8% of global electricity use comes from lighting, and this translates into 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That’s really significant and why the opportunity here is so big.
Q: How has the new programme been informed by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)?
A: Our strategic compass is the Sustainable Development Goals. We committed to six SDGs in the previous programme. The new one has been expanded to cover eight and we conducted a mapping exercise for each of the commitments. I’m hoping that, by the end of this programme, we will see a new version of the SDGs to replace the current goals when they expire in 2030. We remain committed to making our contribution to the SDGs.
Q: Are you seeing higher demand for circular products? What is it that attracts businesses to that option?
A: Yes, we do see an increased demand. For example, we see greater interest in “remanufacturing”, which is a circular business model where we take down the lighting, send it back to our manufacturing site, and upgrade it to the latest technology, but keep the majority of the hardware intact.
I think customers are becoming more and more aware of the fact that regulation is pushing resource efficiency on businesses. And in some countries we see incentives to use circular products, and penalties around sending certain material to landfill. More businesses are becoming aware of this and we strongly believe there is a market for circular products.
How off-grid solar is beating the odds to transform lives in rural Africa
Q: Do you have customers that are facing real resource pressures, in terms of scarcity, increased costs or supply chain constraints that are making them think more about circular issues?
A: The whole market is currently impacted by geopolitical tensions and the disruptions that come as a result. Light as a Service, for example, could be a way for businesses to de-risk because there is no capital expenditure involved. Customers see real value in only having to pay to keep it running.
If we look longer term, then resource and material efficiency is something the whole world should be thinking more about. How can we decouple economic growth from the increased use of natural resources? We believe the circular economy is the answer.
This interview has been shortened and edited for clarity.
Adam Wentworth is a freelance writer based in Brighton, UK.
The post Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now” appeared first on Climate Home News.
Signify: “We believe resilience is becoming more important to businesses right now”
Companies have staked claims for more than 100 lithium-mine projects. Tribes are among the most affected.
This investigation was reported in collaboration between Inside Climate News and Columbia Journalism Investigations.
How the Rush to Mine the Metal of the Future Echoes America’s Colonial Past
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测