The world’s poorest countries renewed a call for the COP30 summit to set a new goal to triple finance for them to cope with the impacts of global warming, warning that an expected decision on how to measure climate adaptation progress in Belém would be fruitless without more money.
Since the mid-year climate talks in Bonn, the Least-Developed Countries (LDC) group has been asking for a new finance target to be set with a 2030 deadline to help them become more resilient to extreme weather and rising seas. They upped their ask in the run-up to COP30 to $120 billion a year, which is three times the current goal of at least $40 billion by 2025.
Speaking to journalists in Belem on Tuesday, Lina Yassin, a Sudanese adviser to the LDCs, said adaptation metrics alone – one of the key outcomes due at COP30 – are necessary but would not benefit vulnerable countries if they cannot fund adaptation projects.
“Indicators don’t rebuild our washed-away villages. They don’t fix our failed harvest. Indicators only show you what’s going on – so beyond indicators, we’re asking for adaptation finance,” she said. So far “we have not heard enough support for it” at COP30, she added.
On Tuesday evening, the COP30 president reiterated that adaptation is central to the success of COP30, adding that the push for an increase in resources for adaptation is “significant”.
Huge gap between funding and needs
The metrics being discussed at COP30 are seen as key to putting into practice the Global Goal on Adaptation, which was enshrined in the Paris Agreement a decade ago, but has yet to achieve much on the ground.
“We still don’t know how to achieve that goal,” Yassin said. “If you ask me about the [1.5C] temperature target, we know we’re not on track. If you ask me, how are we doing on adaptation, no one here can tell me the answer.”
A UN report issued in the run-up to COP30 said developing countries will need to spend between $310 billion and $365 billion per year on measures to adapt to climate change impacts by 2035, warning of a massive funding shortfall as wealthy governments pare back their support.
The latest estimate of developing countries’ annual climate adaptation needs outstrips current funding by at least 12 times, with rich nations providing just $26 billion in 2023, according to the annual Adaptation Gap Report.
If current trends continue, developed countries are set to miss the target to double adaptation finance by 2025 that they committed to at COP26 four years ago, UNEP’s report said.
Global South’s climate adaptation bill to top $300 billion a year by 2035: UN
On Monday, a fundraising session for the UN’s Adaptation Fund raised less than half of its minimum target of $300 million, while it has a pipeline of $700 million in unfunded projects. This marks the third year in a row the fund’s target will be missed, unless more pledges are made before the end of COP30.
Its head said the fund “faces unprecedented demand for its work, and can receive funds from a variety of sources, so we are also hopeful others will come forward in the coming days.”
Indicators seen as putting burden on vulnerable
Technical experts have been working for the past two years under the climate talks to produce a list of around 100 metrics to track efforts towards broad targets to boost climate resilience in seven areas: farming and food, water and sanitation, health, ecosystems, infrastructure, livelihoods and cultural heritage.
Those were decided at COP28 in Dubai in 2023 in a text that also included what is called the “means of implementation”, which covers finance, technical support and building countries’ ability to adapt. Rich countries have pushed back against including specific targets on funding under the Global Goal on Adaptation.
As a result, some country groups – mainly African and Arab nations – have proposed at COP30 to postpone the adoption of the proposed indicators for two years, arguing they cannot sign up to measure progress they cannot afford to make with their own resources. In addition, they say the indicators risk imposing approaches that should be decided by the countries themselves.
Comment: Global Goal on Adaptation – Weighing the cow won’t make it fatter
Harjeet Singh, a climate activist and founding director of India’s Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, said the Africa Group and other developing nations were right to draw a red line on the current draft text in Belem, which he called “a trap”.
“It shifts the burden onto developing nations to fund their own adaptation while letting historical polluters like the US, EU, Australia, Canada, and others off the hook,” he told Climate Home News.
Aichetou Seck of Senegal, a technical lead for adaptation with the LDCs, said African countries do not want to block the process, as adaptation is a key priority for them. Rather, she said, they are seeking to ensure first that they have concrete ways to make progress, including adequate finance.
How could a new target land in Belém?
One observer of the adaptation talks told Climate Home News the call for a tripling of adaptation finance could be positioned instead in the main Mutirão decision, which is likely to form the backbone of the political package due to be agreed in Belem.
Currently, a draft version includes that as an option, together with a process to track progress towards it. But another – favoured by rich nations – only acknowledges the need to “dramatically scale up adaptation finance” without mentioning a number.
COP30 Bulletin Day 8: Draft decision draws battle lines on fossil fuel transition, finance and trade
Some observers and negotiators say a possible compromise could involve specifying a dedicated adaptation funding target within the $300-billion-a-year UN climate finance goal agreed at COP29 last year, rather than creating a separate pledge.
“We want support from the world, because without an adaptation package, without an outcome that doesn’t just give us indicators, it also gives us money, everything we’re discussing here is symbolic,” said Yassin of Sudan. “We will go back home and nothing tomorrow will change.”
The post Poorest countries appeal for more adaptation finance at COP30 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Poorest countries appeal for more adaptation finance at COP30
Cleaner cooking projects in the UN carbon market will have to set aside a share of their credits to insure against the risk that the trees they save are lost to fire, drought or logging, after the market’s regulator rejected calls to exempt the sector.
The requirement is part of a new rulebook that the Paris Agreement carbon market regulator – the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body – approved last Friday for programmes that aim to cut emissions by distributing new and cleaner cookstoves in regions that still burn wood or charcoal for cooking.
These are the UN mechanism’s first rulebooks for cookstoves, one of the carbon market’s most popular credit types and also one of its most criticised for overstating climate benefits.
They consist of two methodologies: one for programmes that aim to cut greenhouse gas emissions by distributing more efficient cookstoves that burn less wood or charcoal, and a separate methodology for projects shifting households to lower-emissions cookers running on electricity or liquid petroleum gas (LPG).
Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Supervisory Body, said “this decision gives cleaner cooking projects a new pathway under the UN carbon market, with clear rules to ensure that each credit represents a real and credible emission reduction”.
Industry and NGOs lobby to weaken UN carbon credit rules in “coordinated” push
In copycat submissions and a private briefing to government officials, the groups have opposed a proposal to tighten safeguards for emissions offsetsLaunch of Africa Energy Bank delayed again in blow to oil and gas hopes
Repeated delays are raising questions about the bank’s momentum and whether it can mobilise investment to finance Africa’s oil and gas ambitions in an era of energy transition
Exemption push rejected
More efficient cookstove projects earn credits based on the amount of carbon they save by preserving trees that would have otherwise been cut down and burned for fuel. But if those trees later burn in a wildfire or are logged, the carbon stored would be released anyway, erasing the climate benefits of the credits.
Several carbon credit developers, conservation NGOs and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) disputed that cookstove projects face this risk, in what critics described as a “coordinated lobbying campaign”.
They argued that, unlike forest protection schemes, this type of credit represents a “flow” of avoided emissions rather than a “stock” of stored carbon that can be released. They also warned that requiring a buffer would impose disproportionate costs and undermine the financial viability of these activities.
But the UN carbon market regulator was not persuaded by the argument. It decided that projects would have to protect against this reversal risk by handing over a percentage of credits to a so-called “buffer pool” instead of selling them.
‘New paradigm’
The amount of credits to be given up is calculated by applying different methods for natural risks, like wildfires, droughts or hurricanes, and human-caused ones, such as logging or land clearing.
For natural risks, project developers will need to apply local risk values derived from new modelling published by a group of independent scientists.
Campaigners have broadly welcomed the decision. Federica Dossi, an expert at Brussels-based advocacy group Carbon Market Watch, said it sets a new paradigm for calculating reversal risk based on empirical data. “This approach is grounded in science and we hope to see this now being adopted by other carbon crediting mechanisms in the voluntary market,” she added.
Backers claim this method is more rigorous than current practice in the voluntary carbon market, which largely relies on expert guesswork.
Pre-COP draws attention to Pacific’s climate plight and 1.5C goal
Pushback over science
As Climate Home News previously revealed, the same industry and NGO groups that sought an exemption from the “buffer pool”, along with some corporate buyers, criticised the use of a study backed by the UN carbon market’s experts that recommended the new risk assessment approach.
The groups pushed for more flexible rules that would have allowed natural risk values drawn from other sources, including national databases, or from the project developers themselves.
While the Supervisory Body rejected this approach, it gave project developers and countries the option to propose alternative values that would first need to be vetted by the mechanism’s expert panel and then approved by the regulator.
A carbon market expert told Climate Home News that, while it is too early to say how this provision will be used, they expect requests will have to be backed up with solid scientific evidence, lowering the risk of unfounded claims.
Policy discounts questioned
To guard against human-caused risks, projects will need to apply a flat 20% value set by the Supervisory Body, at the bottom of the 20-45% range recommended by its technical experts ahead of last week’s meeting.
That value can be further reduced by up to two-thirds if the host country has an emission-reduction plan covering forests, a long-term climate strategy and a framework for the UN’s REDD+ forest protection scheme.
Injy Johnstone, senior research fellow at the Munich-based Max Planck Institute, said that, while these are important governance measures, their existence does not necessarily demonstrate that the underlying risk of forest carbon loss has been reduced.
“It is important to distinguish between evidence of actual risk reduction and assumptions about the effectiveness of policy commitments,” she added.
Moving target
A UN source told Climate Home News that, under the approved formula, improved cookstove projects must set aside at least 9% of credits linked to saved wood if they operate in the lowest-risk areas and the host country can claim all available discounts. The share of credits rises significantly in regions with high natural risk values, such as Guyana, Sri Lanka and Timor Leste, or that do not have REDD+ programmes.
These factors could change in the future as the Supervisory Body asked its technical experts to recommend revisiting the risk values “should credible new evidence arise”.
Climate change is likely to make forest destruction events, such as wildfires or hurricanes, more frequent and more severe in certain regions. Meanwhile, national policies on forest protection can shift significantly depending on government changes.
Johnstone said the UN carbon market needs periodic reassessment to respond to new evidence showing that previously assumed levels of risk were too low.
“The integrity of credits is not guaranteed simply because a reversal risk tool exists,” she added. “The real test will be whether the mechanism provides equivalent atmospheric protection over time, rather than simply introducing another layer of accounting requirements”.
The post UN carbon market forces cookstove projects to protect against forest loss appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN carbon market forces cookstove projects to protect against forest loss
Next week, diplomats from around the world will descend on Yerevan, Armenia, to negotiate a series of decisions under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Between 19 and 30 October, 196 parties will gather to hammer out the precise wording of the dozens of legal texts that make up the decisions under the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD.
This year’s summit is particularly significant, as it marks the halfway point between the agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the deadline for achieving its targets.
The CBD has found that countries are currently not on track to meet 22 out of the framework’s 23 targets.
During the fortnight, delegates will also be negotiating decisions relating to the two supplemental protocols to the CBD: the Cartagena Protocol, which covers biosafety; and the Nagoya Protocol, which covers access and benefit-sharing for the use of genetic resources.
(The Cartagena and Nagoya Protocols, which are each governed by a “meeting of the parties”, or “MOP”, have fewer parties than the CBD as a whole, with 173 and 141, respectively.)
Carbon Brief is tracking the progress of countries towards consensus on dozens of negotiating texts using the interactive table below.
The tracker includes texts from the COP, as well as the MOPs for the Cartagena and Nagoya protocols. It also includes draft decisions from the most recent subsidiary body meetings, as these form the starting point for the negotiations in Yerevan.
The CBD has three subsidiary bodies: the subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice (SBSTTA), the subsidiary body on implementation (SBI) and the subsidiary body on article 8(j) and other provisions (SB8J).
SB8J focuses on issues related to the Indigenous peoples and local communities. It was established at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, in 2024.
The first two columns of the interactive tracker list the topic of each agenda item and the relevant body, with subsequent columns including dates, page counts and links to the original documents.
The table is searchable and can be sorted using the arrows in the header.
Areas of disagreement in UN draft texts are denoted by square brackets. Counting the brackets in a particular iteration of a text therefore gives a sense of how far parties are from reaching consensus.
The bracket column is colour-coded, with dark green indicating a low number of brackets and red indicating a high number of brackets remaining.
Texts can also present parties with choices using “options” or alternatives (“alt”), which are counted together in the sixth column of the table.
The key discussions in Yerevan will centre around two agenda items in particular. The first is the global review, which will assess progress towards the GBF and make recommendations for accelerating action.
The second is finance, which can be separated into two parts: resource mobilisation and the financial mechanism. On resource mobilisation, biodiverse global south countries are likely to push for an increased amount of international finance for conservation.
Disagreement over the creation of the financial mechanism led to the suspension of COP16 in Cali in October 2024, as parties failed to find agreement on the mobilisation of finance before the end of the summit.
Global south countries want the establishment of a separate financial mechanism under the control of the CBD; global north countries largely prefer to maintain the existing mechanism, which sits under the Global Environment Facility.
At the resumed session of COP16 in Rome in early 2025, countries agreed on a roadmap that would lead to the establishment of a permanent mechanism.
related
Analysis: Lula presidency saved at least 20,000km2 of Brazilian Amazon since 2022
Why land-use emissions have fallen by a third this century – in six charts
Analysis: 84% of nations miss deadline to identify ‘nature-harming’ subsidies by 2025
UK withdraws millions in funding from world’s second-largest rainforest in Congo
The post Interactive: Tracking negotiating texts at the COP17 biodiversity summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Tracking negotiating texts at the COP17 biodiversity summit
A beacon of love
On an outer island of Fiji, two thousand nautical miles from Sydney, is a shining light of hope and resilience for our trou