COP29: new climate finance deal tests global solidarity with vulnerable communities

The decision is out after an extremely painful process at COP29. The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) will fail the world, especially the most vulnerable countries in the least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and, within them, conflict-affected settings.

At COPs, you are faced with the best and the worst. The civil society gathers year after year, tirelessly pushing the world and planet towards a sustainable future, whilst the fossil fuel lobby remains as powerful as ever. This year, COP29 was no exception, as Alert observed firsthand. The biggest UN climate change summit of the year offered both hope and frustration in equal measure. And it also laid bare the power imbalances, evident gaps between promises and declarations, and actual choices made by nations.

The stakes: a new global goal for climate finance

At the heart of COP29 was the critical task of establishing a new finance goal to replace the previous $100 billion target and determine how the world pays for climate action. The new goal has been set at $300 billion per year to flow from developed to developing countries, which is peanuts compared to the needs of developing countries to fight climate change and deliver solutions that accelerate the progress of climate action.

Most of this will be disbursed in the form of loans, which will only push fragile countries further to the edge. This number stands for the next 10 years, casting the world into a lost decade, with inflation further eating away at this already desperately inadequate sum. 

A fair NCQG would have been in trillions, mainly distributed in grants and giving direct access to funds. Many developing countries spoke up, protesting its adoption in the clearest and loudest terms, but were ignored.

This setback will, unfortunately, be reflected in the ambition and realistic scale of what can be achieved within National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – if the world will be able to stem global temperature increases in time to guarantee a future for our children.

The vulnerability gap

For communities in fragile and conflict-affected settings, many of whom we are supporting through our peacebuilding work, the stakes were particularly high. On average, they currently receive only one-third of the global adaptation funding compared to other countries, despite bearing the brunt of compounding climate and conflict impacts.

They experience first-hand the correlation between fragility and debt distress: loans they receive force them to spend more on repayments and less on actual adaptation, creating a cycle of increasing vulnerability. A shift to grant-based funding, rather than loans, and improved access to climate finance would have transformed their ability to build resilience.

Have COP29 outcomes on climate finance delivered for those who need it most?

After nearly two weeks of negotiations, with Alert, alongside thousands of civil society organisations calling for ambitious commitments, it is deeply disheartening and frustrating to conclude that COP29 hasn’t delivered for people who need it most. For Alert, our concern is particularly for those communities that are affected by the dual impacts of climate and conflict.

The NCQG text started with six mentions of fragile and conflict-affected settings, then moved to only 2, with weakened language, and landed with none in the final text.  Decision-makers have missed a great opportunity and, by doing so, have turned their back on a vast proportion of the world.  This sends a negative message for next year’s national climate plans, in the form of NAPs and NDCs, and a negative message for international solidarity.

No matter how disheartening the COP29 outcomes on climate finance are for people affected by climate and conflict, we need to look ahead at the work that needs to happen on the NDCs and NAPs. It is key that climate security becomes a cross-cutting theme in these, emphasising how conflict can hamper climate adaptation objectives.

 A legacy for peace within global climate action

For the second year running, COP29 held a Peace Day.  It saw the launch of the Baku Call, supported by Egypt, Italy, Germany, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. As a follow-up to the COP28 Climate Relief Recovery and Peace Declaration, this initiative emphasises the urgency around the need for more ambitious and innovative finance to reach fragile and conflict-affected settings. Referenced in the Call were the Common Principles for Effective Climate Finance and Action for Relief, Recovery, and Peace, signed by 50+ states, organisations, funds and institutions. It provides a practical vision for maximizing the effectiveness of climate action, ensuring that climate action and finance are peace-positive and conflict-sensitive and can offer avenues for resilient and sustainable development, conflict prevention and inclusive peacebuilding.

The Call went hand in hand with the Baku Hub as a coordination platform to deliver on pledges to mitigate challenges on peace and climate nexus.  COP29 has accumulated enough evidence and proposed solutions for climate security challenges and funding gaps the Hub could build on. However, with new partners and commitments secured, its success now depends on its ability to become a united voice for the most vulnerable and push influencing for better and increased financing where it is needed most.

What are the challenges ahead?

Effective climate action in fragile settings also relies on the ability of donors to deepen their understanding of what conflict-affected contexts are and recognise climate adaptation initiatives as an opportunity to build peace. This is relevant in locations with full-scale and sustained violent conflict but also in areas where the conflict isn’t as open or intense in magnitude and can, therefore, be overlooked.

As a colleague from the g7+ powerfully stated, negotiators need to “take off their diplomatic hats and have a conversation human to human” because climate action will only thrive in peace. Understanding how the climate crisis fuels community tensions worldwide is crucial. It is especially needed, considering that a 3°C warming world would multiply the constant feeding into conflict stressors and result in a state of conflict that would be unmanageable and unimaginable devastation for all.

As climate, development, humanitarian and peacebuilding actors, we must ensure our evidence drives decisive policy action, bridging the gap between negotiation rooms and impacted communities.