The first week of the COP29 has seen negotiators from nearly 200 nations struggling through many long-running barriers to progress, while advancing important logistical questions around insight-sharing and performance tracking. Below, we share notes on our focus areas and other key elements of the ongoing negotiations, which are increasingly understood to be about national and collective responses to ongoing planetary health emergency.
The CCI COP29 Agenda
CCI is looking to the COP29 to advance work in six potentially transformational areas:
- Civics, or the genius of local understanding
- Finance reform, innovation, and instrumentation
- Article 6.8 non-market cooperation and trade
- The PARIS Principles and efforts toward a global floor price for pollution
- Food systems that restore nature and improve health and livelihoods
- Zero harm as the ambition-setting global goal
Challenges and Highlights
Dr. David Michael Terungwa—CCI Africa Coordinator and Food Systems Specialist and Founder of the Global Initiative on Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP)—offers these key takeaways on challenges and calls for expanded action:
The first week of COP29 has had mixed results due to significant challenges. Week one finishes with multiple issues outstanding, with the wider COP and geopolitical context difficult. The U.S. election results, Argentina’s decision to leave the negotiations, the failure of developed countries to meet the Adaptation Fund goals. There are questions about whether the COP29 can succeed on its core goals: agreeing on a new climate finance deal and following-up on the implementation of the first Global Stocktake.
Developing countries, represented by the G-77 + China bloc, called for more substantial climate finance, pushing for $1.3 trillion annually in grants rather than loans, which can exacerbate debt in already vulnerable economies.
This is a major question in the debate around the new collective quantified goal, and echoes insights from pre-COP29 workshops, specifically:
“the least developed, lowest emitting, and most vulnerable countries, should never have to borrow money for disaster response or adaptation, that grant-based finance is most appropriate, ethical, and effective, in such cases.”
There are concerns around conflicts of interest between fossil fuel businesses and the hard work of negotiating global collaboration toward climate goals. Trust will be a key metric as the process moves forward, and many proposals have been put forward that could achieve both trust-building and effective implementation.
An open letter from senior climate leaders—including a former UNFCCC Executive Secretary and a former UN Secretary-General—called for a number of process reforms:
- Improve the selection process for COP presidencies
- Streamline for speed and scale
- Improve implementation and accountability
- Ensure robust tracking of climate financing
- Amplify the voice of authoritative science
- Recognise the interdependencies between poverty, inequality and planetary instability
- Enhance equitable representation
Carbon Trading Controversy
Much of the international climate cooperation agenda moves through Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Paragraphs 2 and 4 focus on “international transfer of mitigation outcomes” or emissions trading between countries. Paragraph 8 focuses on “non-market” approaches (NMAs), meaning everything that does not involve emissions trading but does involve 2 or more countries.
On Monday, November 11, the opening day of the COP29, new rules were agreed for international emissions trading markets. The move was controversial, because though it comes after nine years of halting and slow-moving negotiations, the new proposed rules were approved without debate or discussion.
Major concerns about environmental integrity, decarbonization efficacy, and rights and justice for vulnerable communities, remain, and will need ongoing attention from national governments, international agencies, civil society observers, stakeholder groups, and carbon market actors themselves.
Article 6.8 Non-Market Cooperation
The in-session workshop on Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement highlighted the fact that designated national focal points tasked with adding non-market cooperative efforts to a new web portal have increased to 78, as of this week, but no nation has yet added one cooperative initiative to the portal.
CCI and the Climate Value Exchange would like to remind negotiators and observers of the long list of NMAs previously reviewed by the Parties, many of which are already active and delivering resources to mulitiple countries. We also share again our review of the value-building potential of non-market cooperation. There is, as we said in that brief, no excuse for not acting to accelerate cooperative action toward the climate value economy.
Draft text on Article 6.8 outcomes for the COP29 — from this 6th convening under the Glasgow Committee on Non-Market Approaches (GCNMA 6) — describes the ongoing first phase of the work programme as “identifying existing non-market approaches under the framework, and for identifying and sharing information, best practices, lessons learned and case studies in relation to develpoing and implementing non-market approaches.”
The GCNMA 6 draft outcome also points to Phase 2 focusing on fully implementing work programme activities “following a learning-by-doing approach”, in recognition of the need to get work started and develop the sharing and collaboration standards based on successful efforts and areas of need. The text also calls for spin-off groups to embody “a continuous focus on knowledge-sharing,” with “broader participation, including of public and private sector stakeholders such as international organizations, technical experts, businesses, civil society organizations, Indigenous Peoples organizations and financial institutions.”
We applaud both the ambition of expanding NMA work while learning-by-doing and the call for inclusive participation of non-party stakeholders, who will be instrumental to the best-case design and delivery of successful climate-resilient development through non-market multilateral cooperation. We also applaud the draft for Phase 2 including “an emphasis on a wide variety of ecosystems, bulk purchase and distribution of renewable energy technologies, and green infrastructure and conservation programmes that support mitigation, adaptation, and resilience.”
We recommend three new categories of indicator be included in future discussions on the questions of progress and efficacy of non-market cooperative approaches:
- Trade benefits: Are NMAs moving participating nations closer to climate-smart trade as the norm?
- Local benefits: Are NMAs bringing more resources for sustainable development to communities that need to revitalize or diversify their local economies?
- Mainstreaming benefits: Are NMAs advancing not only innovative solutions but the transformation of mainstream activities across the economy?
The Future of Climate Finance
The Leaders Summit, the Leaders Summit of Small Island Developing States, and the meeting of the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action, alongside negotiations on the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance have given us some new things to think about in terms of the future of climate finance.
A few key questions:
- Can justice and need be more effectively met by expanding and diversifying the list of contributors to climate finance funds and facilities, and by making it easier to reach communities directly (also diversifying recipients)?
- Can the scale of funding available be increased quickly—for mitigation, adaptation, resilience, and overcoming loss and damage?
- Are national governments adjusting public policy to allow innovative funding collaborations, to mobilize resources across the economy? And are they making these adjustments to mobilize resources domestically and in partnership with other nations?
- Will vulnerable communities be prioritized in terms of financial benefits from climate risk reduction and resilience-related invesmtents?
An important detail of the draft Finance goal text is the proposed recognition that the new collective quantified goal should “respond to” levels of ambition in national plans for both decarbonization and adaptation. There is debate over the use of terms like “costed need”, though the benefit of such phrasing is to make clear both the need and the gaps in funding.
Paragraph 12 explores various possible quantifications and notes a problematic lack of information:
The COP “Highlights that {costed}{financial} needs {in nationally determined contributions}{of developing country Parties} are {currently} estimated at {USD 5.036– 6.876 trillion}{{USD 5.012–6.852}{5.10-6.85} trillion up until 2030}{455–584 billion per year} {and adaptation finance needs are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually up until 2030}{according to the second report on the determination of the needs of developing country Parties related to implementing the Convention and the Paris Agreement by the Standing Committee on Finance, noting {that the report does not fully cover the needs and costs of developing countries and all regions as a result of limited availability of information}{significant gaps and limitations due to gaps in information on the processes and approaches used in determining needs, the methodologies and underlying assumptions used, and a lack of available data, tools, capacities}}{acknowledging that these needs estimations are likely undervalued as not all needs have been expressed in monetary values, including for loss and damage};”
Paragraph 13 recognizes the growing gap between available funding and needs, and Paragraph 14:
- “Confirms that the scale and elements of the goal should reflect the evolving needs and priorities of developing countries, as a dynamic process and […]
- “decides that the NCQG will be delivered in the context of the evolving needs and priorities of developing country Parties, for mitigation and adaptation and addressing loss and damage;”
The text also talks about the importance of accelerate delivery, at scale, recognizing the disproportionate needs of vulnerable countries suffering high climate impact costs. It does not, however, provide much clarity on which mechanisms would provide which functions to ensure that acceleration, scale, vulnerability-sensitive structural reform, and inclusion of affected communities, can all be achieved quickly and sufficiently.
Food Systems
Before moving on from finance, a few notes from the COP29 side event co-hosted by CCI and the Good Food Finance Network, with FAIRR and the TAPP Coalition, on Friday, November 15:
- Food systems are driving major climate disruption and cost, while losing trillions of dollars per year for the world economy, and while suffering serious climate impacts that threaten their long-term sustainability.
- Friday’s discussion on Agri-Food Finance and Enabling Policies to Drive Climate Action offered important insights into the policy opportunities, including shifting of subsidies to reward positive impacts, and the legal context, including rights of nature
- The event also touched on financial innovations that can meet these needs, both by including more diverse donors and beneficiaries and by reaching underserved local communities that need to build capacity and enhance resilience.
- There is no single insight that covers the full range of policy and financial need, but it is critical that trust, information-sharing, and transparency support the rapid mobilization and scaling of these interventions.
The Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of climate action on agriculture and food security (SJWA) draft text focused on creation of a portal for information sharing. Though clear actionable mechanisms for rapid mobilization and scaling are still needed, the list of priorities aligns with the known needs outlined above, including:
- Need for collaboration;
- Funding needs and opportunities;
- Sharing of information and knowledge-exchange;
- Capacity-building.
While communities around the world face worsening costs and risks due to climate imapct that degrade food system productive capacity and sustainability, there is a rapidly rising need for ‘good food finance’—funding support for health-building, risk-reducing, sustainable and climate-smart food systems. This is where external cooperative arrangements like the Good Food Finance Facility or a Green Nutrition Security Pact could be vital for making real transformation possible.
Information, Participation, and Transparency
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell celebrated the Enhanced Transparency Framework now being “fully operational”. He noted more than 2,000 experts have been trained in the last year, adding:
“Transparency is crucial, not only because it highlights progress in climate action but because it spurs more action. Enabling data-driven responses that build resilience and protect vulnerable populations by identifying risks and vulnerabilities, and leading to better resource allocation.”
Transparency is about efficacy and investability. It is also about trust: Do we know what works, who is doing it, and how it might be replicated elsewhere? We have also begun to highlight the importance of engagement and transparency being linked to indicators and performance tracking, in line with a key insight from the Earth Diplomacy Leadership workshops:
“All countries, communities, and companies, need distilled, actionable data, so they can make clearer choices about what they need day to day and long term.”
Meetings around Action for Climate Empowerment have resulted in recognition of the value of civic engagement, public information, training and other aspects of ACE. The Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) “acknowledged with appreciation the significant contributions of United Nations organizations and other stakeholders, including intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, in advancing the implementation of ACE”, “recalled the importance of ACE for empowering all members of society to engage in climate action”, and cited “the importance of integrating ACE elements into national climate change policies, plans, strategies and action…”
The SBI also called on all Parties and non-Party stakeholders to contribute reports and updates to the UNFCCC submission portal “on progress, challenges and improvements related to ACE implementation”, to inform future negotiations, dialogues, and decisions, and to help spread good practices and optimize the allocation of financial and technical resources.
In its draft outcome on Research and systematic observation, “The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) recognized the vital importance of robust Earth observation systems and related long-term data records”, and the need to deliver Early Warning Systems for All. It also “noted the continued efforts of the Systematic Observations Financing Facility, which currently prioritizes systematic observations in the least developed countries and small island developing States, and invited the Facility to consider extending its support for systematic observations to more countries”.
There are ongoing efforts to build stakeholder engagement into the Loss and Damage Fund, including local observation and grading of financial interventions. CCI welcomes efforts to expand data sharing for multidimensional metrics, as well as engagement standards and practices aligned with the Capital to Communities approach, which calls for stakeholder participation in the design, delivery, and tracking of climate finance arrangements.
Toward Zero Harm
The UAE-Belem work programme on indicators gathered more than 7,000 adaptation-related indicators earlier this year. Its work has been recognized as critical to future work setting ambition and providing support for implementation of effective adaptation measures. The report from the October workshop under the UAE-Belem work programme noted that:
“The vast majority (around 95 per cent) of identified indicators are existing, originating from a range of sources, including the SDGs, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and processes for national reporting through, for example, national adaptation plans, nationally determined contributions and adaptation communications.”
This points to the potential for widespread, diverse mobilization for effective adaptation across already active areas of policy, investment, and crisis response. The report also noted the need for better clarity about tracing non-quantitative indicators. For instance:
“The relevant experts working on the food target noted that the majority of the 1,116 indicators assigned to it are quantitative, with information on associated methodologies being available for 73 per cent, but there is a lack of information on the best available science and use of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and wisdom.”
This is one of the reasons it is so important that the new Baku work plan for the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform was approved, to support work over the next three years. Among the key tasks will be to identify ways to involve local communities and indigenous peoples in design of policies, finance arrangements, metrics, and insight-sharing, linked to their experience, local and traditional knowledge, and future wellbeing.
We see four major priorities in relation to the Global Goal on Adaptation:
- Use the GGA to work toward a future in which people and ecosystems experience zero harm from industrial climate disruption, raising ambition across the board;
- Add significant new funding to adaptation and resilience needs;
- Prevent maladaptation and related disruption and destabilization, with sufficient;
- Resources on the ground, in communities everywhere, making successful climate-resilient development possible at the human scale, now, before it is too late.
The good news is discussions around adaptation recognize these priorities. There is real concern, however, that funding, resources, and ambition will all fall short in practice for years to come. No country can afford for this to be the case. Even in the most prepared countries, with the most advanced infrastructure, climate impacts are starting to overwhelm efforts attuned to past hardships.
The GGA work has been pushed to Week 2, for the 6th meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement, to build on the Week 1 draft negotiating text. We need to see significantly higher ambition overall, accelerated action, finding support for innovative adaptation measures, vulnerability response as a priority, and a commitment to act on a wide range of the indicators identified by the UAE-Belem work programme.
FEATURED IMAGE
ADDITIONAL COP29 REPORTING
