COP29 Outcomes – A Call to Action for the World’s Most Vulnerable Nations

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Environment, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

UNITED NATIONS, Dec 5 2024 (IPS) – The conclusion of the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) brings with it a blend of urgency, frustration, and a glimmer of hope for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

These nations, responsible for only a fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, suffer disproportionally from the devastating impacts of climate change.

Yet, for these vulnerable countries, the outcomes of COP29 fell short. While there was progress in certain areas, the agreements reached do not match the scale of the challenges. As the UN Secretary-General António Guterres rightly underlined, COP29 provides a foundation, but it demands urgent and ambitious action to build upon it.

Rabab Fatima

Climate Finance: The Lifeline for vulnerable nations

One of the COP29’s pivotal outcome was the agreement to achieve a global climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion annually by 2035. While this amount does not address the needs of the most vulnerable nations, we must ensure it is delivered in full.

While COP29 left ambiguity in the exact source of these funds, between now and 2035, we should seek to establish aspirational targets for amounts flowing from the established financial instruments under the UNFCCC-such as the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund.

We must also closely track the amounts for adaptation, and to the extent possible ensure that these finance flows are from public sources, and grant-based resources or highly concessional means.

While COP29 did not set targets for the most vulnerable nations, systematic reporting will be critical to ensuring that resources reach those who need them most.

The formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are critical for LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS to respond to escalating climate threats. COP29’s establishment of a support programme for NAP implementation in LDCs is a positive step. However, swift and efficient operationalization is essential.

Loss and Damage: From promises to reality

Progress on the Loss and Damage Fund was a key highlight of COP29. Turning pledges into tangible contributions is now the priority. Stepping up capitalization and rapid and effective operationalization of this Fund are critical to addressing irreversible losses in lives and livelihoods caused by climate change.

Mitigation and Energy Transition

While COP29’s mitigation outcomes were modest, the urgency for emissions reductions cannot be overstated. According to the 2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report, emissions must fall by 42 percent by 2030 compared to 2019 levels to stay on track for the 1.5°C target.

For LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS, achieving this requires unprecedented support to ensure access to renewable energy and investments in sustainable energy. A just energy transition is integral not only for climate goals but also for economic growth and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

A Call to Action

COP29’s results remind us that incremental steps are insufficient. The world’s most vulnerable countries are facing a climate emergency that demands bold and immediate actions. This includes:

    • Ensuring timely and adequate climate finance flows to LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS.
    • Enhancing support for adaptation, particularly through public grant and highly concessional means.
    • Full and effective operationalization of the Loss and Damage Fund.
    • Empowering LDCs and SIDS to fully participate in the Article 6* market mechanisms.
    • Supporting sustainable energy transitions aligned with global climate goals.

The survival of LDCs, LLDCs, and SIDS is not just a litmus test for global climate commitments -it is a matter of justice, not charity.

As we look toward COP30 and beyond, let COP29 be a catalyst for greater ambition and unity. The time for half-hearted measures is over; the world must deliver on its promises to secure a just and sustainable future for all.

Rabab Fatima is Under Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States (UN-OHRLLS).

Prior to her appointment, she was the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations in New York. In that role, she co-chaired the preparatory committee meetings of the Fifth United Nations Conference on the LDC (2021). She also served as the President of the Executive Boards of UNICEF (2020) and UN-Women (2022) as well as Vice-President of the UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS Executive Board.

She was the first women to be elected as the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2022. She also led other inter-governmental processes, including the facilitation of the progress declaration of the first International Migration Review Forum.

*https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-64-mechanism

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Courage, not Compromise? A Rallying Cry that Failed a Deadlocked COP Meeting

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Combating Desertification and Drought, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Negotiations on a future global drought regime got underway at UNCCD COP16 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia December 2-13.

KATHMANDU, Nepal, Dec 4 2024 (IPS) – Courage and not compromise. That was the motto desperately launched by members of the civil society in the twilight of the negotiations of the Plastic Pollution Treaty in Busan, South Korea last week.

As we now know, the negotiations did not yield the results that would have helped Planet Earth set a groundbreaking target to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.

Meanwhile, the international community is onto another crucial meeting in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia to discuss global efforts against desertification. It is going to be another COP process, what is formally known as the 16th Session of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification or UNCCD. (COP16, December 2-13).

Apparently, this time, the host, Saudi Arabia, is going to lead a tremendous effort to ensure a strong outcome. Over the last two and half months, Riyadh, rather than being a global leader to ensure the survivability of our planet, a champion of sustainability, has been a disruptor.

The Saudis were among those who have been undermining the recently concluded Climate COP 29 in Baku and, to a lesser extent, the COP 16 on Biodiversity in Cali, Colombia.

But a review of what unfolded over the last two and half months, would also bring an indictment for act of omission not only to the Petro states but also to all developed nations.

Indeed, the eleventh-hour rallying cry– “courage, not compromise”– should have been embraced as the North Star by all those nations who were ready to take bold steps in the three recently concluded COP processes.

In Busan, as explained by the Center for International Environmental Law, CIEL, ” negotiators had several procedural options available, including voting or making a treaty among the willing”. Yet the most progressive nations, around 100 countries, including the EU and 38 African nations and South American countries, did not dare to go beyond the traditional approach of seeking a consensus at any cost.

Ironically what happened at COP 16 and COP 29 was equally a travesty of justice as developed nations did not budge from their positions. At the end, the final deals on biodiversity and climate financing, were in both cases extremely disappointing especially in relation to the former.

Indeed. in Cali, there was no agreement at all in finding the resources needed to implement the ambitious Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

According to BloombergNEF (BNEF), in its Biodiversity Finance Factbook, ” the gap between current biodiversity finance and future needs have widened to $ 942 billion”.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF), the financial vehicle to implement the Framework, is still very far from becoming a true game changer.

The millions of dollars that a small group of European nations have pledged during the negotiations in Cali, are still a miniscule contribution in relation to what was agreed two years ago in Montreal where the second leg of the COP 15 was held.

There, the final outcome underpinning the Framework, required the mobilisation of financial resources for biodiversity of at least US$200 billion per year by 2030 from public and private sources and identifying and eliminating at least US$500 billion of annual subsidies harmful to biodiversity.

What unfolded in Baku at the climate COP was also, in terms of financing, embarrassing for developed nations. The hardly negotiated agreement of tripling the US$ 100 billion per year by 2035 with a commitment to reach up to US$ 1.3 trillion by the same year through different sources of money, including difficult to negotiate levies, is far from what is required.

On this front, the embarrassment was not only on the traditional developed nations but also on countries like China and the Gulf Nations who stubbornly rejected their responsibility to play their part in climate financing.

At least, as part of a last minute compromise, the developed nations (G7 and few others like Australia) will now co-lead the responsibility of finding the resources. China and others wealthy nations that, according to an outdated UN classification are still officially considered as “developing”, will contribute but only on voluntary basis.

As we see, the final outcomes of these three COPs were far from being courageous. Compromising, epitomized by concepts like ” constructive ambiguity”, agreeing on something that can be interpreted differently by the nations at the negotiating tables, instead dominated.

At this point, considering the frustrations of these mega gatherings, what could be done? Is the existing model of the COP with its complexities and endless delays and bickering, still viable?

The influential Club of Rome, on the last days of COP 29, had released a strongly worded press release asking for a major reform of the ways negotiations were carried out. “The COP process must be strengthened with mechanisms to hold countries accountable”. The document went even further with calls to implement robust tracking of climate financing.

Also, with each COP, a series of new initiatives are always launched, often just for the sake of visibility and prestige.

The risk is having a multitude of exercises and mechanisms that drains resources that, are at the end, are neither productive nor meaningful but rather duplicative and ultimately, a waste of money.

We should be even more radical, I would say. For example, the international community should introduce the same peer to peer review process in place in the Human Rights Council that, frankly speaking, is hardly a revolutionary tool.

And yet, despite the fact that nations with a solid track record in human rights abuses remain unscathed in the Council, such a change would represent some forms of accountability in the areas of biodiversity and climate.

This could be envisioned as a reform that should accompany the implementation of the upcoming 3rd wave of Nationally Determined Contributions due by 2025. Getting rid of the consensus model is also something that should truly be considered.

Why not holding votes that would break the vetoes of even one single nation? Why being so attached to unanimity when we do know that it is not working at all?

As show in Busan, it is the traditionally developed nations that lack courage and farsightedness in pursuing a procedure that might backfire against them. This is, instead, a cause that at least the EU, Canada and Australia should embrace. Yet we are still very far from reaching this level of audacity.

Another fanciful thinking relates to tie nations’ actions to the possibility of hosting prestigious sports tournament. Why not forcing international sport bodies like FIFA to reward the hosting rights for its mega events only to nations which are climate and biodiversity leaders in practice rather than through empty but lofty declarations?

Unfortunately, there will never be consensus within the football federations that run FIFA governing body or say, within the International Olympic Committee. A more promising area, though also not easy to put into practice, would be to find ways in which non state actors would have a real say in the negotiations.

Both the COP 16 and the COP 29 reached some breakthroughs in relation to giving more voice, for example, to indigenous people. In Cali, it was decided to establish a new body that will more power to indigenous people.

It is what is formally known, in reference to the provision related to the rights of indigenous people of the International Convention on Biodiversity, as the Permanent Subsidiary Body on Article 8(j).

The details of this new body will be object of intense negotiations but at least a pathway has been created to better channel the demands of a key constituency who, so far, has struggled to gain its due recognition.

Also at COP 29 saw some wins for indigenous people with the adaption of the Baku Workplan and the renewal of the mandate of the Facilitative Working Group (FWG) of local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platforms.

Surely there can be some creative solutions to strengthen what was supposed to be the platform to incorporate and engage non state actors, the Marrakesh Partnership for Global Action.

The members of civil society could come up with new ideas on how to formally have a role in the negotiations. While it is impossible to have non state actors at the par of member states party to the conventions around which the COPs are held, surely the latter should be in a better place and have some forms of decision power.

Lastly one of the best ways to simplify these complex and independent from each other negotiations, would be to work towards a unifying framework in relation to the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

On this, the Colombian Presidency of the COP 16 broke some important grounds with Susana Muhammad, the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development of Colombia who chaired the proceedings in Cali, pushing for bridging the gap between biodiversity and climate negotiations.

None of the propositions listed here are going to be easy to implement. What we need is simple to understand but also extremely hard to reach.

Only more pressure from the below, from the global civil society can push governments to make the right choice: setting aside, at least for once, the word compromise and instead chose another one that instead can make the difference while instilling hope.

This word is called courage.

Simone Galimberti writes about the SDGs, youth-centered policy-making and a stronger and better United Nations

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

COP29 Falls Short on Finance

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, COP29, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Inequality, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Murad Sezer/Reuters via Gallo Images

LONDON, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – COP29, the latest annual climate summit, had one job: to strike a deal to provide the money needed to respond to climate change. It failed.

This was the first climate summit dedicated to finance. Global south countries estimate they need a combined US$1.3 trillion a year to transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to the impacts of climate change. But the last-minute offer made by global north states was for only US$300 billion a year.

The agreement leaves vague how much of the promised target, to be met by 2035, will be in the form of direct grants, as opposed to other means such as loans, and how much will come directly from states. As for the US$1 trillion annual funding gap, covering it remains an aspiration, with all potential sources encouraged to step up their efforts. The hope seems to be that the private sector will invest where it hasn’t already, and that innovations such as new levies and taxes will be explored, which many powerful states and industry lobbyists are sure to resist.

Some global north states are talking up the deal, pointing out that it triples the previous target of US$100 billion a year, promised at COP15 in 2009 and officially reached in 2022, although how much was provided in reality remains a matter of debate. Some say this deal is all they can afford, given economic and political constraints.

But global north states hardly engaged constructively. They delayed making an offer for so long that the day before talks were due to end, the draft text of the agreement contained no numbers. Then they made a lowball offer of US$250 billion a year.

Many representatives from global south states took this as an insult. Talks threatened to collapse without an agreement. Amid scenes of chaos and confusion, the summit’s president, Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan, was accused of weakness and lack of leadership. By the time global north states offered US$300 billion, negotiations had gone past the deadline, and many saw this as a take-it-or-leave it offer.

The negotiating style of global north states spoke of a fundamental inequality in climate change. Global north countries have historically contributed the bulk of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions due to their industrialisation. But it’s global south countries that are most affected by climate change impacts such as extreme weather and rising sea levels. What’s more, they’re being asked to take a different development path to fossil fuel-powered industrialisation – but without adequate financial support to do so.

These evident injustices led some states, angered by Babayev bringing talks to an abrupt end, to believe that no deal would have been better than what was agreed. For others, waiting another year for COP30 would have been a luxury they couldn’t afford, given the ever-increasing impacts of climate change.

Financing on the agenda

Far from being settled, the conversation around climate financing should be regarded as only just having begun. The figures involved – whether it’s US$300 billion or US$1.3 trillion a year – seem huge, but in global terms they’re tiny. The US$1.3 trillion needed is less than one per cent of global GDP, which stands at around US$110 trillion. It’s a little more than the amount invested in fossil fuels this year, and far less than annual global military spending, which has risen for nine years running and now stands at around US$2.3 trillion a year.

If the money isn’t forthcoming, the sums needed will be eclipsed by the costs of cleaning up the disasters caused by climate change, and dealing with rising insecurity, conflict and economic disruption. For example, devastating floods in Valencia, Spain, in October caused at least 217 deaths and economic losses of around US$10.6 billion. Research suggests that each degree of warming would slash the world’s GDP by 12 per cent. Investing in a transition that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and enables communities to adapt isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s also the economically prudent option.

The same problems arose at another recent summit on a related issue – COP16 of the Biodiversity Convention, hosted by Colombia in October. This broke up with no agreement on how to meet the funding commitments agreed at its previous meeting. The international community, having forged agreements to address climate change and protect the environment, is stuck when it comes to finding the funding to realise them.

What’s largely missing is discussion of how wealth might be better shared for the benefit of humanity. Over the past decade, as the world has grown hotter, inequality has soared, with the world’s richest one per cent adding a further US$42 trillion to their fortunes – less than needed to adequately respond to climate change. The G20’s recent meeting said little on climate change, but leaders at least agreed that ultra-wealthy people should be properly taxed. The battle should now be on to ensure this happens – and that revenues are used to tackle climate change.

When it comes to corporations, few are richer than the fossil fuel industry. But the ‘polluter pays’ principle – that those who cause environmental damage pay to clean it up – seems missing from climate negotiations. The fossil fuel industry is the single biggest contributor to climate change, responsible for over 75 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s grown incredibly rich thanks to its destructive trade.

Over the past five decades, the oil and gas sector has made profits averaging US$2.8 billion a day. Only a small fraction of those revenues have been invested in alternatives, and oil and gas companies plan to extract more: since COP28, around US$250 billion has been committed to developing new oil and gas fields. The industry’s wealth should make it a natural target for paying to fix the mess it’s made. A proposed levy on extractions could raise US$900 billion by 2030.

Progress is needed, and fast. COP30 now has the huge task of compensating for the failings of COP29. Pressure must be kept up for adequate financing combined with concerted action to cut emissions. Next year, states are due to present their updated plans to cut emissions and adapt to climate change. Civil society will push for these to show the ambition needed – and for money to be mobilised at the scale required.

Andrew Firmin is CIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

  Source

Confronting the Global Crisis of Land Degradation

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Global, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

The 16th session of the Conference of Parties (COP 16) of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) will take place in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2 to 13 Dec. 2024

RIYADH Saudi Arabia, Dec 2 2024 (IPS) – A major new scientific report was launched December 1, a day ahead of the opening of the 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP16).

The report charts an urgent course correction for how the world grows food and uses land in order to avoid irretrievably compromising Earth’s capacity to support human and environmental wellbeing.

Produced under the leadership of Professor Johan Rockström at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in collaboration UNCCD, the report, titled Stepping back from the precipice: Transforming land management to stay within planetary boundaries, was launched as nearly 200 countries convene for COP16 starting on Monday, 2 December in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The report draws on roughly 350 information sources to examine land degradation and opportunities to act from a planetary boundaries’ perspective. It underlines that land is the foundation of Earth’s stability and regulates climate, preserves biodiversity, maintains freshwater systems and provides life-giving resources including food, water and raw materials.

It outlines how deforestation, urbanization and unsustainable farming are causing global land degradation at an unprecedented scale, threatening not only different Earth system components but human survival itself.

The deterioration of forests and soils further undermines Earth’s capacity to cope with the climate and biodiversity crises, which in turn accelerate land degradation in a vicious, downward cycle of impacts.

“If we fail to acknowledge the pivotal role of land and take appropriate action, the consequences will ripple through every aspect of life and extend well into the future, intensifying difficulties for future generations,” said UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw.

According to the UNCCD, the global area impacted by land degradation – approx. 15 million km², more than the entire continent of Antarctica or nearly the size of Russia – is expanding each year by about a million square km.

Planetary boundaries
The report situates both problems and potential solutions related to land use within the scientific framework of the planetary boundaries, which has rapidly gained policy relevance since its unveiling 15 years ago.

“The aim of the planetary boundaries framework is to provide a measure for achieving human wellbeing within Earth’s ecological limits,” said Johan Rockström, lead author of the seminal study introducing the concept in 2009. “We stand at a precipice and must decide whether to step back and take transformative action, or continue on a path of irreversible environmental change,” he adds.

The planetary boundaries define nine critical thresholds essential for maintaining Earth’s stability. The report talks about how humanity uses or abuses land directly impacts seven of these, including climate change, species loss and ecosystem viability, freshwater systems and the circulation of naturally occurring elements nitrogen and phosphorus. Change in land use is also a planetary boundary.

Six boundaries have already been breached to date, and two more are close to their thresholds: ocean acidification and the concentration of aerosols in the atmosphere. Only stratospheric ozone – the object of a 1989 treaty to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals – is firmly within its “safe operating space”.

Unsustainable agricultural practices
Conventional agriculture is the leading culprit of land degradation according to the report, contributing to deforestation, soil erosion and pollution. Unsustainable irrigation practices deplete freshwater resources, while excessive use of nitrogen- and phosphorus-based fertilizers destabilize ecosystems.

Degraded soils lower crop yields and nutritional quality, directly impacting the livelihoods of vulnerable populations. Secondary effects include greater dependency on chemical inputs and increased land conversion for farming.

Climate change
Meanwhile, climate change – which has long since breached its own planetary boundary – accelerates land degradation through extreme weather events, prolonged droughts, and intensified floods. Melting mountain glaciers and altered water cycles heighten vulnerabilities, especially in arid regions. Rapid urbanization intensifies these challenges, contributing to habitat destruction, pollution, and biodiversity loss.

The report also states that land ecosystems absorbed nearly one third of human-caused CO₂ pollution, even as those emissions increased by half. Over the last decade, however, deforestation and climate change have reduced by 20% the capacity of trees and soil to absorb excess CO₂.

Transformative action
According to the report, transformative action to combat land degradation is needed to ensure a return to the safe operating space for the land-based planetary boundaries. Just as the planetary boundaries are interconnected, so must be the actions to prevent or slow their transgression.

Principles of fairness and justice are key when designing and implementing transformative actions to stop land degradation, ensuring that benefits and burdens are equitably distributed.

Agriculture reform, soil protection, water resource management, digital solutions, sustainable or “green” supply chains, equitable land governance along with the protection and restoration of forests, grasslands, savannas and peatlands are crucial for halting and reversing land and soil degradation.

From 2013 to 2018, more than half-a-trillion dollars were spent on agricultural subsidies across 88 countries, a report by FAO, UNDP and UNEP found in 2021. Nearly 90% went to inefficient, unfair practices that harmed the environment, according to that report.

New technologies
The report also recognizes that new technologies coupled with big data and artificial intelligence have made possible innovations such as precision farming, remote sensing and drones that detect and combat land degradation in real time. Benefits likewise accrue from the precise application of water, nutrients and pesticides, along with early pest and disease detection.

It mentions the free app Plantix, available in 18 languages, that can detect nearly 700 pests and diseases on more than 80 different crops. Improved solar cookstoves can provide households with additional income sources and improve livelihoods, while reducing reliance on forest resources.

Numerous multilateral agreements on land-system change exist but have largely failed to deliver. The Glasgow Declaration to halt deforestation and land degradation by 2030 was signed by 145 countries at the Glasgow climate summit in 2021, but deforestation has increased since then.

Some key findings include:
Land degradation is undermining Earth’s capacity to sustain humanity;
Failure to reverse it will pose challenges for generations;
Seven of nine planetary boundaries are negatively impacted by unsustainable land use, highlighting land’s central role in Earth systems;
Agriculture accounts for 23% of greenhouse gas emissions, 80% of deforestation, 70% of freshwater use;
Forest loss and impoverished soils drive hunger, migration and conflicts;
Transformation of land use critical for humanity to thrive within environmental limits
Read the full press release with more facts and figures in all official languages, as well as with daily media updates: https://www.unccd.int/news-stories/press-releases

The COP is the main decision-making body of UNCCD’s 197 Parties – 196 countries and the European Union. UNCCD, the global voice for land, is one of three major UN treaties known as the Rio Conventions, alongside climate and biodiversity, which recently concluded their COP meetings in Baku, Azerbaijan and Cali, Colombia respectively.

Coinciding with the 30th anniversary of UNCCD, COP 16 will be the largest UN land conference to date, and the first UNCCD COP held in the Middle East and North Africa region, which knows first-hand the impacts of desertification, land degradation and drought. COP 16 marks a renewed global commitment to accelerate investment and action to restore land and boost drought resilience for the benefit of people and planet.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Explainer: Why COP29 Baku Outcome is a Bad Deal for Poor, Vulnerable Nations

Posted on by admin

Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP29, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Humanitarian Emergencies, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals | Analysis

COP29

COP 29/CMP 19/CMA 6 closing plenary Credit: Vugar Ibadov/UNFCC

COP 29/CMP 19/CMA 6 closing plenary
Credit: Vugar Ibadov/UNFCC

NAIROBI & BAKU, Nov 26 2024 (IPS) – The culmination of bitter, difficult, and challenging climate negotiations concluded with an announcement from the COP29 Presidency of Azerbaijan of the “agreement of the Baku Finance Goal—a new commitment to channel USD1.3 trillion of climate finance to the developing world each year by 2035.” This is on top of the USD 300 billion that the developed world is to extend to developing nations annually by 2035.

Developed nations appear perturbed by the outrage from the Global South as the COP29 Presidency big-up what is for all intents and purposes a bad deal for vulnerable nations on the frontlines of climate change. Once an annual inflation rate of 6 percent is factored into the new goal, USD 300 billion is not the tripling of funds that is being made out to be.

The Baku deal indicates that “developed countries will lead a new climate finance goal of at least USD 300 billion per annum by 2035 from all sources, as part of a total quantum of at least USD 1.3 trillion per annum by 2035 from all actors, with a roadmap developed in 2025.”

Ambiguous Climate Finance Promises

The promise of a USD 1.3 trillion of climate finance in line with what developing countries wanted rings hollow, for the text does not lay out the road map for how the funds are to be raised, postponing the issue to 2025. Even more concerning, Baku seems to have set things in motion for wealthy nations to distance themselves from their financial responsibility to vulnerable nations in the jaws of a vicious climate crisis.

COP29 text “calls for all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing country Parties for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD1.3 trillion per year by 2035.”

In this, there is a mixture of loans, grants, and private financing. Essentially, the Baku agreement reaffirms that developing nations should be paid to finance their climate actions, but it is vague on who should pay.

Baku to Belém Road Map

For finer details, there is a new road map in place now known as the “Baku to Belém Road Map to 1.3T.” COP29 text indicates that the “Baku to Belém, Brazil’ roadmap is about scaling up climate finance to USD 1.3 trillion before COP30 and that this is to be achieved through financial instruments such as grants, concessional as well as non-debt-creating instruments. In other words, the roadmap is about making everything clear in the coming months.

In climate finance, concessionals are loans. Only that they are a type of financial assistance that offers more favourable terms than the market, such as lower interest rates or grace periods. This is exactly what developing nations are against—being straddled with loans they cannot afford over a crisis they did not cause.

Article 6 of Paris Agreement: Carbon Markets

Beyond climate finance, there are other concerns with the final text. Although it has taken nearly a decade of debate over carbon trading and markets, COP29 Article 6 is complex and could cause more harm than good. On paper, the carbon markets agreements will “help countries deliver their climate plans more quickly and cheaply and make faster progress in halving global emissions this decade, as required by science.”

Although a UN-backed global carbon market with a clear pathway is a good deal, it falls short on the “transparency provision” as the agreement does not address the trust crises compromising current carbon markets. Countries will not be required to release information about their deals before trading and that carbon trading could derail efforts by the industrialized world to reduce emissions as they can continue to pay for polluting, and this will be credited as a “climate action.”

Climate Funds Fall Short

The Loss and Damage Fund seeks to offer financial assistance to countries greatly affected by climate change. There is nonetheless delayed operationalisation and uncertain funding, as COP29 did not define who pays into the fund and who is eligible to claim and draw from the fund.

The Adaptation Fund was set up to help developing countries build resilience and adapt to climate change. Every year, the fund seeks to raise at least USD 300 million but only receives USD 61 million, which is only a small fraction—about one-sixth—of what is required.

Final Text Quiet on Fossil Fuels

The final COP29 text does not mention fossil fuels and makes no reference to the historic COP28 deal to ‘transition away from fossil fuels’. Climate change mitigation means avoiding and reducing emissions of harmful gases into the atmosphere.

Fossil fuels are responsible for the climate crises, but the COP29 text on mitigation is silent on the issue of fossil fuels and does not therefore strengthen the previous COP28 UAE deal. Saudi Arabia was accused of watering down the text by ensuring that “fossil fuels” do not appear in the final agreement. They were successful, as the final text states, “Transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition.”

Earlier, while welcoming delegates to COP29, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev left no one in doubt about his stand on fossil fuels, saying that oil and gas are a “gift from God,” praising the use of natural resources including oil and gas, and castigating the West for condemning fossil fuels while still buying the country’s oil and gas.

Against this backdrop, COP29 negotiations were never going to be easy, and although the Summit overran by about 30 hours more than expected, it was certainly not the longest COP, and it will certainly not be the most difficult as Baku has successfully entrenched bitter divisions and mistrust between the developed and developing world.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Climate Change in Azerbaijan is Putting Women at Increased Risk of Gender-Based Violence

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Change, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: UN Women

PARIS, Nov 22 2024 (IPS) – Climate change exacerbates existing gender inequalities and gender-based violence. At COP29 in Azerbaijan, governments have been urged to prioritize gender-responsive climate policies that address the specific needs of women and girls, and serious concerns have been raised about backtracking on women’s rights during these crucial negotiations on climate action.

In Azerbaijan, extreme weather events made worse by global warming and poor environmental management are heightening the risks women and girls face. As the frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters increase, more families are being left vulnerable, accelerating the need for targeted interventions.

Clean World Social Union participated in COP29 to address the critical intersection of gender inequality and the climate crisis, advocating for policies that prioritize the needs and rights of women and girls in the face of environmental challenges.

Clean World Social Union is one of only two civil society organizations in Azerbaijan providing specialist accommodation and support to women escaping gender-based violence. They operate a shelter in the capital city, Baku, housing up to 60 women and children. A second shelter in Ganja, managed by the Public Union “Tamas,” accommodates 25 residents.

Clean World Social Union collaborates with the international women’s rights organization Equality Now to strengthen the legal rights of women and girls in Azerbaijan.

Leyla Suleymanova

Coordinator Leyla Suleymanova spoke to Equality Now about how climate-induced displacement is impacting women in the country and why the government urgently needs to do more in response.

What are some of the ways that climate change is affecting women and girls in Azerbaijan?

Climate change is definitely making women more vulnerable to gender-based violence. We’ve worked with many women from rural areas whose families have lost their homes and livelihoods due to floods, drought, and other environmental crises. People become homeless, their lives have been devastated. Before, they had opportunities to earn money to improve their lives, but now they don’t.

This is forcing people to migrate and is pushing them into urban areas. Gender-based violence increases because when people become poorer, it puts pressure on families who cannot earn a living, and men can become more violent. Every day, we receive hundreds of calls from women, but due to the limited capacity of our shelters, we have to refuse many.

After extreme climate events, many women migrate alone to urban centers like Baku to support their families. However, some do not have the necessary skills or knowledge to find employment and earn money. Displacement caused by ecological crisis isolates women from their social networks and support systems, and makes them more vulnerable to abuse. As well as domestic violence, we have seen increases in commercial sexual exploitation and trafficking.

How is Azerbaijan’s government responding to the impact that climate change is having on women in the country?

In Azerbaijan, there is some understanding about how climate change impacts women and girls, but not enough. And while the government is doing some things about climate change, it’s not making the connection between ecological crisis, gender issues, and gender-based violence.

Changes in legislation and punishment for child marriage are getting tougher, but I think the ecological crisis is making the situation worse. With people becoming poorer and life getting harder, this connects to child marriage. Some families think if they have a girl who they cannot afford to provide food and education for, she should be married off quickly.

In cases of gender-based violence after extreme weather events, women often don’t have financial support, don’t know who to turn to, and may have psychological issues. It is sometimes very difficult to support these victims as they need free and regular assistance, but there are many we cannot help because of limited resources. And when there are floods, there is a big increase in the number of women needing help but we cannot provide so much support.

I have not heard of any official strategies or action plans to improve the situation for women when an ecological crisis happens. Government strategies should include implementation and coordination to address women’s issues. Without this, it is difficult to deal with these problems.

What action on climate change to support women is needed from governments?

Women and girls are being directly and disproportionately affected by the ecological crisis and we have to raise this with governments and other key stakeholders. There is a critical opportunity to address the unique challenges by developing and implementing comprehensive frameworks and gender-responsive strategies that tackle both the immediate and longer-term impacts.

Vocational training programs can help women adapt to climate change by equipping them with skills for sustainable livelihoods. This is particularly crucial for women in rural areas who may need to migrate to urban centers, where employment opportunities are more accessible. Providing these tools empowers women to rebuild their lives and communities while fostering resilience against climate-related challenges.

It is equally important to increase women’s participation in decision-making processes related to climate policies. By including women’s perspectives and experiences, governments can create more equitable and effective solutions. Gender equality must be central to these discussions, ensuring women’s voices shape policies addressing ecological and societal impacts.

Strengthening support systems is another vital step. Expanding access to psychological counseling, legal aid, and safe shelters for women and girls will address the immediate fallout of climate shocks. Additionally, building local capacity to meet the needs of women affected by these events will ensure long-term sustainability.

Public awareness campaigns are necessary to educate communities about the gendered impacts of climate change, and women should be given information about who they can turn to for support when their rights have been violated. Initiatives can shift societal attitudes, promoting a greater understanding of women’s vulnerabilities and the need for protective measures.

The COP29 summit in Azerbaijan underscored the urgency of integrating gender issues into climate action. Coordination among government agencies, civil society organizations, and international partners is essential to ensure these efforts are effective, inclusive, and provide women and girls with protection in the face of an evolving climate crisis.

Maithreyi Kamalanathan, Equality Now

IPS UN Bureau

  Source