What is at stake at COP30? A view from the financing agenda

COP30 kicks off in Belém, Brazil, and feelings are running high about what this conference of the Parties can really do for the world. At a time when the credibility of the United Nations international system is in crisis and countries are moving toward accelerated regression in terms of their commitments, not only to climate, but even to democracy itself and the protection of human rights, the world needs hope.

Photo: Oficial COP30

Despite this scenario, there is a clear call for this COP to be successful and to make firm progress towards the fulfillment of the Paris Agreement. However, hopes for a successful outcome package from the COP appear to be complicated by the lack of agreement on key issues such as adaptation, financing, and just transition, and by the lack of clarity on the strategy and priorities of the Brazilian presidency to guide these talks. 

This is because every COP requires the political and diplomatic commitment of the presidency to reach agreements. The truth is that COP30 can only be credible if it is accompanied by clear progress in the provision and mobilization of climate finance, particularly around adaptation.

What elements should be included in the climate finance package at COP30?

Many aspects of financing will be discussed, because after the signing of the Paris Agreement, everything moved towards an implementation scheme in which the resources to achieve it are fundamental.

In this regard, although there are 17 items on the financing agenda, there are four aspects that are critical and require a response or decision at this COP:

1. The Baku to Belém Roadmap to mobilize $1.3 trillion: during COP29 in Baku, a New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance (NCQG) was agreed upon as part of Article 9, which promotes financial support for developing countries. Despite the demand for a financial commitment that would meet the needs of these countries, it was only agreed to triple the target of $100 billion that had been agreed upon since 2009. In other words, the new target was set at $300 billion per year starting in 2026. This generated great discontent in developing countries, as trillions are needed to meet these needs. Therefore, a group of developing countries proposed generating a Roadmap to mobilize at least $1.3 trillion as an aspirational goal. This Roadmap was to be led by the presidencies of Brazil and Azerbaijan, conducting consultations with the parties. Almost a year after this agreement, and just three days before the start of the COP, the Roadmap was presented with various positive aspects, some negative and others unacceptable.

Despite pointing out that this is a non-negotiable issue because the COP29 decision does not provide for it as such, it is an element that requires a response, even if only symbolic. Possible scenarios are:

a)      Countries decide to welcome it, adopt it, and create a process to review and implement it in the coming years.

b)      No adoption process is agreed upon, but a transparency framework is reaffirmed that allows the Standing Committee on Finance to prepare a report on the roadmap as part of the NCQG's mandate.

c)      Given the lack of transparency and inclusion in the process, the parties do not welcome it and it remains just another document from the COP presidency, with no future.

While other scenarios could be possible, the truth is that there is little consensus on this document, its content, and the process that gave it life, and only a diplomatic maneuver by Brazil could help give it a respite, although according to the presidency, this is not one of its priorities. 

2.      Article 9.1 on the provision of climate finance for developing countries: Although this article was integrated as part of Article 9, which is the basis for the new climate finance target, this target does not include a provision element, i.e., it does not clearly establish the allocation of finance from the public budgets of developed countries. For this reason, developing countries, especially like-minded countries (LMDCs), have demanded that this be a new element of negotiation, which was well received by groups of developing countries, but not by developed countries, which point out that this element is already integrated into the NCQG. Some possible scenarios are:

a)      Create a new negotiating element on Article 9.1 to ensure clarity in the provision. This has already generated diverse points of view, and developed countries do not agree.

b)     Identify a space where greater clarity is integrated on what developed countries provide as provision; this could be through provisions related to transparency and the provision of information by developed countries (9.5). However, they do not integrate aspects of quality of finance.  

c)      No space is created to discuss the issue, and it is discarded.

There are other possible scenarios, such as continuing to push the agenda item, but continuing to insist on this provision in other spaces.

3.      Article 2.1.c and making all financing flows consistent with low-carbon development: This is one of the most important elements at the heart of the Paris Agreement, which promotes making all financing flows consistent with low-carbon and climate-resilient development. In this regard, a process was created to discuss what it means to make these flows "consistent," "comparable," and "aligned" with the agreement, a dialogue that lasted three years and is coming to an end at this COP. The debate among countries is whether the dialogue should continue and in what format and duration, if countries so decide. There are several scenarios:

a)      Agree to continue the dialogue for another three years, under the current format.

b)     Agree to continue the dialogues, but with a clearer structure and a tangible goal to be achieved, namely the formulation of a monitoring framework, under the development of a work program.

c)      Not agreeing on a follow-up process.

This process has been driven by developed countries, and although developing countries have participated actively, they have always made it clear that for developing countries to align their finances, it is possible if and only if they have financial support to do so, i.e., associated with Article 9, which refers to financial support for developing countries.

Given the lack of clarity on the provision in the NCQG, it would be clear that developing countries would not want to push forward with the discussions on 2.1.c, which would also have implications for them.

4.      Financing for adaptation: Securing financing for adaptation is one of the most relevant issues for this COP. On the one hand, because the creation of indicators for monitoring the global adaptation goal, in which the issue of financing is key, is under discussion. Additionally, this year marks the end of the period for meeting the goal of doubling financing for adaptation, agreed upon in Glasgow. In view of this, the least developed countries are talking about the possibility of tripling (instead of doubling) adaptation financing, and that this should be the minimum to be achieved at this COP. There is a debate about whether to talk about a new target, or whether it is part of the financing target (NCQG). The truth is that the demand is to find ways to accelerate this increase. Some possible scenarios are:

a)      Encouraging developed countries to renew the Glasgow commitment, but tripling the target instead of just doubling it.

b)     Agreeing on a process for a new target as part of the Global Adaptation Goal conversation.

c)      Promoting a reporting system by the Standing Committee on Finance, so that what is presented as a report on the new financing goal includes an analysis of financing for adaptation.

d)     A combination of the above, given that there is currently no specific negotiation  item associated with this issue. 

Although there is no specific agenda item on adaptation financing, there is talk of an urgent call for COP30 to achieve not only a narrative but also clear commitments in this regard. This is because the Roadmap to mobilize 1.3 sought to integrate this issue, and although it is in the narrative, the proposals are very weak.

Can COP be successful without a financing package?

One of the issues promoted by the Brazilian presidency was the Tropical Forest Forever Fund (TFFF). This was one of the proposals championed by the presidency for two years to promote the mobilization of financing to ensure that forests and jungles remain intact. Although major commitments were sought prior to COP, a few days earlier, at the Leaders' Summit, commitments of $5.5 billion were announced, less than expected.

Photo: oficial COP30

Although this was a good sign to kick off the COP process, the truth is that this is a commitment made outside the convention process, and although the resource could be counted as part of the new financing goal, more clarity is needed on how countries will mobilize at least $1.3 trillion or more.

That is why the COP must conclude with a financing goal that provides certainty to the process and clear indications that the system works and, above all, that it works for the majority, which are the developing countries, particularly those experiencing the ravages of climate change.

Brazil is also experiencing a complicated national political context. After a period of great political momentum, it is close to an electoral change that could jeopardize its climate leadership. In other words, the pressure on the country goes beyond the international process. However, its international leadership will also be key for the world, beyond the realities that the country may be experiencing at the national level, and it is important to be clear about this when conducting the talks. The world has faith in Brazil. What is needed now is for Brazil to strengthen the process and conduct the talks in an effective, transparent, and inclusive manner. The success of this COP will depend on it.