The urgency to grapple with climate change cannot be stressed enough, especially with developing countries bearing the higher brunt of this global crisis that they have contributed the least to. Most climate-vulnerable countries look towards international negotiation platforms like the ones offered at the Conference of the Parties to put forward their concerns and scale up any substantive climate action. Viewing it from a broad spectrum, these negotiations provide an insight into how multilateralism comes into action when pursuing a common goal like climate crisis. While all parties involved push for escalating climate action, the approach amongst different groups of countries is varied. For instance, Small Island Developing States and other climate-vulnerable developing countries would advocate more for accessible climate finance that can be channeled to climate adaptation and mitigation.
Developed countries like the US and several European countries, at least, observed in COP29, are more hooked on diversifying the sources of climate finance to ramp up mitigation and adaptation initiatives. Intrinsically, every country shapes climate action demands based on its domestic climate, economic, and social landscape. These factors feed into the negotiations put forward by different countries on such global platforms.
No COP can be termed fully successful since a certain group would feel that their demands might not have gotten the light they intended to get. However, some positive conclusions do come to the surface. For instance, at COP29, governments agreed on rules on how countries can formulate, trade, and register carbon credits after years of impasse. International carbon markets over the years witnessed a decay of credibility having crashed twice in the last two decades. A study found that less than 16% of issued carbon credits translated into any substantive real emissions reductions. Hence, having an agreed set of international rules on carbon markets is a commendable outcome of the recent international climate negotiations.
A significant aspect of negotiations that should be accentuated more is trade, forming an important part of multilateralism. For instance, the European Union is undergoing a green transformation in its trade policy. While in itself, it is a positive step taken towards sustainability, several developing countries face this sudden onus of decarbonisation which is not fair to them. For example, the European Union’s carbon border levy will put a higher price on cement, and other imports based on their carbon dioxide emissions. The costly climate-related trade policies inflicted by wealthy countries should incorporate the longer-term repercussions of such immediate policies. Hence, the international climate negotiation must incorporate climate-related concerns for international trade.
The recent COP29 set a goal of mobilising at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035, 3 times larger than the previous goal of USD 100 billion per year till 2020, a myriad of resentments was observed from different countries
Another topic that these climate negotiations should be tackling more widely is Artificial Intelligence and digitisation. The irony needs to be understood here: while digitisation can be used to understand climate factors like meteorological variables (precipitation, temperature, etc.) better, helping formulate effective climate mitigation and adaptation policies, the data centers and cloud computing are mostly powered by fossil fuels, and the burning of these petrochemicals means more greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.
Climate finance has always taken center stage in these negotiations because, at the end of the day, climate finance is needed to implement climate action which can be capital-intensive. It is especially hard for developing countries since many countries are politically and economically fragmented and a good deal of climate finance is needed to mitigate the impacts of climate crisis. While the recent COP29 set a goal of mobilising at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035, 3 times larger than the previous goal of USD 100 billion per year till 2020, a myriad of resentments was observed from different countries. Any quantitative goals were scarce for three facets of climate finance (mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage).
There should have been more focus on loss and damage since last year, COP28, signaled a positive outcome of the establishment of funds for loss and damage. Only, a total of USD 84.6 million has been pledged, with the largest amount coming from Australia of USD 32.6 million this year towards that fund. This paints a negative picture of how wealthy countries, like the US and the UK, are stressing the urgency of funding such funds. Last year, the pledges made to the fund for loss and damage totaled USD 647.1 million.
Similarly, the qualitative improvements to climate finance were not substantive, consisting of mostly non-binding calls to improve concessionality, transparency, and access to finance. An adaptation goal could have been implemented since several groups agreed to upscale adaptation finance to USD 85 billion by 2035, but it was not incorporated into the decision. However, for adaptation, an important step taken was the Baku Adaptation Roadmap building on Article 7 of the Paris Agreement that provided for the establishment of the global goal of adaptation, aiming to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change. This will help encourage regular reviews, and accountability, solidifying more commitment towards climate adaptation.
While strides like the agreement on international carbon market rules and the Baku Adaptation Roadmap showcase positive momentum, the gaps in climate finance goals and trade equity underscore the need for greater commitment and inclusivity. The road to Brazil next year offers a pivotal opportunity to set more concrete, actionable targets, especially for climate finance, adaptation, and loss and damage. By incorporating innovative financing solutions, equitable trade practices, and the transformative potential of technology, the global community can move closer to a truly multilateral and sustainable approach to tackling the climate crisis.