Baku Climate Talks: G77, China Reject Framework For Draft Text On New Climate Finance Goal

NEW DELHI: G77 and China, the largest bloc representing around 130 countries at the UN climate talks, on Tuesday rejected the framework for a draft negotiating text on a new climate finance goal -- the central issue at this year's climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. The group has also called for an ambitious climate finance target of USD 1.3 trillion, dedicated exclusively to developing countries and covering adaptation, mitigation and loss and damage.

G77 and China rejected the substantive framework for a draft negotiating text prepared by the co-chairs of the Ad-Hoc Work Programme on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), arguing that it does not accurately reflect the concerns raised by developing countries. The group demanded that the newly-appointed co-chairs of the NCQG contact group prepare a new text for consideration at the next session.

Other groups of developing countries, including the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs), Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), backed G77 and China in this rejection. According to the Loss and Damage Collaboration, an international coalition of climate researchers and activists, G77 and China demanded that the new climate finance package meet their needs and priorities, with a minimum quantum of USD 1.3 trillion, which should support mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage initiatives.

The group stressed that the NCQG should not become a global investment goal and it should be a dedicated financial support from developed countries.
On the other hand, developed countries want everyone (governments, private companies, investors) to invest in tackling climate change, not to set a strict funding amount that only developed countries need to provide.

Developing countries also insist that the new climate finance goal should prioritise public, grant-based and concessional finance, as these types of funding are less burdensome for nations already facing financial challenges. According to the Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment, developing countries are also calling for developed nations to provide arrears for the USD 100 billion climate finance goal agreed to in 2009.

At COP15 in 2009, developed countries pledged to mobilise USD 100 billion per year to help developing nations adapt to and combat climate change by 2020. However, this target was only met in 2022, with loans accounting for around 70 per cent of the total climate finance provided. Developing countries are also asking that the NCQG impose no conditions on access to climate finance.

Among the developed countries, the European Union (EU) has said the amount of public finance depends on several factors, such as funding sources, contributor base and the timeframe of the finance goal. The United States has said the NCQG should be a multi-layered global investment goal applicable to all countries. It has also argued that developing countries already providing substantial climate finance bilaterally should also contribute.

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), high-income industrialised nations (referred to as Annex-II countries) are responsible for providing finance and technology to help developing countries address and adapt to climate change. These countries include the US, the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and EU member states, such as Germany and France.

Some developed countries, led by the EU and the US, argue that the global economic landscape has shifted significantly since 1992. They suggest that countries that have become wealthier since then, like China and some Gulf states, should also contribute to the new climate finance goal. Developing countries view this as an attempt to shift responsibility from those who have historically benefitted from industrialisation and contributed the most to greenhouse-gas emissions. They argue that expecting them to contribute, especially when many are still grappling with poverty and inadequate infrastructure amid worsening climate impacts, undermines the principle of equity.