- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Call to triple adaptation finance
At COP26 four years ago, governments agreed to “urge” developed countries to double finance for adapting to climate change up to around $40 billion a year by 2025.
That goal ends this year, although we will not know until 2027 if it has been met. But at a press conference in Bonn this afternoon, the Least Developed Countries group chair Evan Njewa called for a successor goal – tripling adaptation finance by 2030 on 2022 levels. “Adaptation is a lifeline,” he explained.
Other developing countries are likely to back this. Grupo Sur and the Like-Minded Developing countries have made the same call in different negotiating rooms and Njewa said he was sure that the small islands group AOSIS would back it too.
“We’re never going to say no to adaptation finance,” AOSIS finance negotiator Thibyan Ibrahim told Climate Home in Bonn. But he noted that even tripling “does little to close the adaptation finance gap”. The UN estimates that developing countries need $160-340 billion a year by 2030, whereas tripling on 2022 levels would bring in just under $100 billion.
Last year in Baku, developed governments would not agree to having a sub-goal on adaptation in the wider $300-billion-by-2035 finance goal and it’s not currently clear which negotiating track a new adaptation goal could be included in.
The doubling-by-2025 goal was in the COP26 cover decision – a stand-alone declaration all governments agree to – but the COP30 Presidency has said it does not want a cover decision.
It would fit in the Baku to Belem roadmap to $1.3 trillion or the Global Goal on Adaptation. But the roadmap is not an official negotiated UN agreement – so may not be followed up on – and developed-country governments have been resisting financial indicators in the Global Goal on Adaptation.
Meanwhile outside the world of UN climate talks, a recent CARE report showed that adaptation finance is likely to fall by 10% in 2026. France, Germany, the Netherlands and particularly the UK are set to make big cuts between 2025 and 2026.
The US is giving nothing in either 2025 or 2026. Commenting on US climate finance cuts generally, Njewa said he expects “someone somewhere to rise up and fill in the gap that that party has left”.
From Bonn to Nairobi?
Denouncing the visa problems faced by some developing country delegates heading to Bonn, more than 200 climate campaign groups made a joint call yesterday for governments to consider whether Germany should remain the default host for the mid-year climate talks.
Chanting “no borders, no nations, no visa applications”, a dozen campaigners gathered outside the conference centre on Tuesday morning, holding up a banner calling to move the annual talks to “visa-friendly countries”.
With many of those affected by the perennial issue unable to protest themselves, the demonstrators played a voice note from Roaa Alobeid, a young Sudanese climate activist who spoke movingly at COP28 about the war in her country.
She said she had gone to great lengths to get a visa for the Schengen area, which includes Germany, making an appointment, submitting 15 documents – including five letters of support and a bank statement – but was still rejected.
“I’m not there. I will never be there”, she said. “Why? I’m not worth it?” “We shouldn’t be left behind when we are the ones impacted.”
Cameroonian activist Zoneziwoh Mbondgulo-Wondieh did make it, but told the protest her one-year-old daughter had been refused a visa for being too young. She asked why Germany would implicitly tell a nursing mother they must stay at home and not work abroad.
When Climate Home questioned the German foreign office on this issue last year, a spokesperson said it was important to the government that all delegates could attend but there are legal requirements for getting a visa for the EU’s Schengen zone of free movement.
Rachitaa Gupta, head of the Global Campaign to Demand Climate Justice, said it would be better to hold the annual mid-year talks somewhere like Nairobi or Bangkok – where UN facilities already exist and visas are easier to obtain. Holding the meetings in the Global South would also be cheaper, Gupta added.
Climate finance on the rise – mostly for the rich
New figures out today paint a fairly positive picture of global climate finance, showing it climbed to a record $1.9 trillion in 2023, more than tripling over six years.
Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), which compiles the data, said that at the current rate of growth, the world could deliver $6 trillion in annual climate investment – the most conservative estimate of needs – by 2028.
Private-sector funding rose above $1 trillion for the first time in 2023, driven by household spending on electric vehicles, solar and energy-efficient housing – with clean energy in advanced economies and China receiving the bulk of the money.
While this suggests the long-touted need to “shift the trillions” towards green investment is underway, the headline numbers mask the fact that many of the poorest countries are still failing to receive anything like the amounts they need.
The CPI report shows that overall public climate finance fell by about 8% from 2022 to 2023, as government budgets were tight after the COVID-19 pandemic. It also warned that recently announced cuts to official development assistance, in countries such as the US and the UK, raise concern that money from this source could decline further.
International climate finance for emerging markets and developing countries reached $196 billion in 2023, with 78% of that from public sources. Yet while both climate-related development finance and private investment rose, CPI said the least-developed countries still face barriers to accessing affordable capital, and need more financial innovation and support.
In a separate report released on Monday, however, Oil Change International and 17 other NGOs warned that a widely used approach of using government money to lower investment risk and bring in more commercial cash – known as “blended finance” – is falling short of expectations.
The report found that every public dollar of concessional lending is bringing in 4-7 times less private investment than anticipated, leaving the Global South with massive shortfalls of cash for its energy transition. Most money, it said, is going to Global North countries and China, with the remaining 69% of the world’s population receiving just 15% of finance in 2023-2024.
“A just energy transition is dramatically more affordable than continued fossil fuel dependence. But unfortunately affordable doesn’t mean ‘attractive to banks and hedge funds’,” said Bronwen Tucker, global public finance lead at Oil Change. “It is clear from the data that private investors are not fit to lead the way to the fossil free future we need, and that governments must step in.”
Mineral justice for Africa
Efforts to revive the Lobito Corridor trade route in central Africa must prioritise local economic development over raw material exports, researchers at the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) said, as campaigners in Bonn call for justice for resource-rich countries and an end to the extractive injustices of the fossil fuel era.
The US and the European Union are providing financial support to Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zambia to upgrade their infrastructure to aid transport of critical energy transition minerals like cobalt and copper through a rail system which terminates at the port of Lobito on Angola’s Atlantic coast.
In a policy brief issued this week, highlighting the Corridor’s opportunities and challenges for a just transition, the researchers questioned how the project’s development will benefit the wider economies of the countries involved, while protecting social benefits and human rights including being fair to the people whose land it might encroach upon and the artisanal miners who dig up many of the raw materials.
They said the involvement of the EU and the US has raised concerns in participating countries such as Zambia, where a parliamentary committee has said the Lobito Corridor project appears to focus on “mopping up critical raw materials” to respond to the energy security concerns of wealthy nations without adding value to the countries.
Lorenzo Cotula, IIED principal researcher, said if the EU and other prospective funders are interested in a genuine, long-term partnership with Angola, Congo and Zambia, they should support their efforts to promote economic development and improve the lives of their citizens.
“This project shouldn’t just be a means to export more raw materials more quickly to wealthier countries, or another chess piece in the great power game,” Cotula said.
“Millions of people in mineral-rich, lower-income countries are being sidelined in a global rush for materials to power electric cars, computers and even military technologies in richer nations,” he added.
Sharing similar concern, campaigners from Power Shift Africa and the Natural Resource Governance Institute (NRGI) convened a press conference at the ongoing talks in Bonn calling for the need for just minerals in the just transition, because one cannot exist without the other.
Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at Climate Action Network International (CAN-I), said the transition that is happening is not one that is needed for a climate-compatible world because the needs of resource-rich countries are being ignored.
Rosemberg said there is need for international cooperation to overturn the current competition over resources, adding that “we know that investment and trade deals are being arranged to secure the supply of these minerals, and in the end, we are reproducing all the mistakes that have been done in the past with the fossil-based economy”.
Samira Ally, project officer at Power Shift Africa, said Africa’s mineral wealth can accelerate a global shift to net zero when governed by justice and stability with necessary guardrails in place.
To do this, she asked governments to integrate language from the G20 and the UN panel on critical minerals into the climate talks and national climate plans so that they “reference sustainable supply chains and the right to development and industrialisation in the Global South”.
The post Bonn bulletin: Developing nations call for adaptation finance to triple by 2030 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Bonn bulletin: Developing nations call for adaptation finance to triple by 2030
Continue Reading
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.
The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie. If you want to generate more funding for biodiversity, let’s look at sovereign debt burdens and rules, which are inequitable for developing countries. But if you can fund wars, and provide resources for your defence industry, then you know where the priorities are.”
On 29 October – at a plenary meant to adopt final texts for the most contentious subjects – Norway’s Gaute Hanssen announced that resource-mobilisation discussions would go into a smaller “friends of the chair” meeting.
Facilitated by Carolina Caceres from Canada and Imèn Meliane from Tunisia, the meeting would discuss the most contentious elements of a draft decision that had swelled to 112 brackets, denoting areas of disagreement on specific details in the text.
While the meeting was open to all, countries that were called to be present included Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, the EU, Fiji, Norway, Russia, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the UK.
At the same time, a “non-paper” text by finance and environment ministers laid out countries’ red lines and compromises.
At the end of COP17, countries welcomed a final compromise text, with Kenya thanking the “strong women” co-chairs who strove to strike a “delicate” balance.
China, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland and Fiji cautioned against any further interventions, with Brazil warning: “If we open this text, we will never close it again.”
While the final decision “recognises” that “contributions from more parties would improve the mobilisation” of biodiversity finance, it steered away from issuing criteria to expand the list of donor countries.
The text makes it clear that no additions to the list would be made without inviting and confidentially consulting with interested countries, to secure their explicit consent.
Instead, the CBD secretariat “invites” countries keen to be on the list and “assume the obligations” of developed countries to “signal interest” before COP18 and at every alternate COP thereafter.
At the same time, developing countries can contribute to meeting the GBF and biodiversity convention’s goals on a “voluntary basis”, with contributions not implying inclusion on the list.
A negotiator for China told Carbon Brief at the closing plenary:
“We welcome this balanced document. It was a very long discussion that has gone [on] since [2022 nature talks in] Nairobi. But actually this time, there were a lot of sensitive issues, [there were] a lot of critical things we didn’t open in the contact groups; it mainly went to the high-level discussion.”
The decision also establishes a financial mechan