By Kizito CUDJOE
A new report from the IMAL Initiative for Climate and Development has outlined five strategic recommendations to restore confidence and rebuild trust among parties as they approach negotiations on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) ahead of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan.
The report, titled ‘Rebuilding Confidence and Trust after the US$100billion: Recommendations for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG)’, addresses the deep-seated “trust deficit” that has historically undermined climate finance discussions.
The authors emphasise need for vigilance to avoid a repeat of the events at COP15 in Copenhagen, which is now widely regarded as the ‘‘most acrimonious moment’’ in the history of the UN United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The recommendations made are therefore, seeking to rectify past failures and establish a more robust framework for international climate financing.
This year – designated as the ‘Year of Finance’ by the UNFCCC – is considered critical for reaching a consensus on the NCQG. This new climate finance goal is intended to replace the US$100billion per year target established at COP15 in Copenhagen in 2015.
However, negotiations have yet to converge on a unified stance; raising concerns that COP29 may conclude without an agreement.
The NCQG aims to address critical gaps in climate finance, particularly the inadequacies in funding for adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage. The failure of developed countries to meet their financial commitments could have significant repercussions for the UN climate regime, which has faced intensified scrutiny in recent years.
To repair trust and rebuild confidence among parties in the ongoing NCQG debate, the report recommends the following:
- A needs-based approach to setting the quantum: “Taking into account the needs and priorities of developing countries”
- A constituent structure of thematic subgoals: Mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage
- The commitment for climate finance to be ‘new and additional’ has been interpreted differently, and so a common definition is needed
- Developed nations must clarify ‘the fair share’ of climate finance per country to address laggards
- Countries should have a common understanding on the balance of finance between concessional loans and grants versus non-concessional loan-based finance instruments
The report’s authors stress the importance of avoiding a repeat of the COP15 debacle, which ended in what is widely regarded as one of the most contentious moments in the history of UNFCCC negotiations.
With developing countries’ climate finance needs estimated to exceed US$1trillion annually until 2030, the urgency for a solid financial framework is paramount. Many of these countries, particularly in Africa, grapple with severe poverty, underdevelopment and mounting public debt, constraining their ability to invest in climate action.
Meanwhile, the promised US$100billion annually has often fallen short, exacerbating the impact of climate change on vulnerable populations.
The report highlights that ambiguity surrounding the US$100billion commitment has significantly eroded trust. Key areas of contention include differing interpretations of what constitutes ‘new and additional’ finance, discrepancies in the fair share of contributions, imbalances between different thematic areas of finance and confusion over the appropriate financial instruments.
Authors Said Skounti and Iskander Erzini Vernoit underscore the need for a paradigm-shift in how climate finance is approached. They argue that only by addressing these critical issues can trust be rebuilt and effective climate action ensured.
Director-IMAL and co-author of the report, Iskander Erzini Vernoit, noted that the report has arrived at a crucial juncture in the NCQG negotiations. “Lessons from the US$100billion experience must be heeded to prevent a breakdown of trust and failure to meet climate goals,” he added.
Researcher at IMAL and co-author of the report Said Skounti also added that: “Our report explores critical areas where differing interpretations of the US$100billion climate finance commitment have eroded trust in developed countries among developing nations, especially on issues like additionality, fair shares and concessionality.
“We propose that a needs-based NCQG must include a core provision goal measured in grant-equivalent terms, with clear sub-goals for adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage, aiming to rebuild confidence and establish a more transparent climate finance framework.”
Senior Research Associate at ODI and chair of the independent Finance Working Group (FWG), Charlene Watson, on her part said they are pleased to partner with IMAL in bringing to light these important perspectives on lessons to learn from the US$100billion goal experience.
“The New Collective Quantified Goal would do well to make such improvements in transparency and accountability to preserve ambition and better secure delivery of the NDCs,” she added.
