A version of this opinion piece, co-authored by Imane Saidi, a researcher at IMAL, and Fatuma Hussein, a programme manager at Power Shift Africa, was first published in The East African.
As COP29 approaches, decision-makers must recognize that the world’s ability to truly adapt to the impacts of climate change depends on the new climate finance goal. Moreover, they must recognize that the future of climate finance must be based on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).
Thankfully, we have a solid basis for ambition in the GGA. Last year, COP28 marked a turning point by operationalizing the framework for the Global Goal on Adaptation, a key pillar of the Paris Agreement. It established ambitious targets for thematic areas, spanning water, agriculture, health and cultural heritage as well as for dimensional phases of the policy cycle.
The framework goes beyond planning and implementation to cover risk and vulnerability assessment as well as monitoring, evaluation and learning.
Nevertheless, adopting the GGA framework was a bittersweet milestone for many developing countries. These countries, vulnerable to the climate crisis, had hoped it would also set objectives for international support for adaptation.
Meanwhile, developed countries insisted that adaptation finance would instead be dealt with under the negotiations for the new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance.
Was this honest? Was this true? Or have subsequent events shown this to be inaccurate?
With less than 2 months until it is to be agreed at COP29, the NCQG is at risk of being treated as a siloed monolith. At present, not enough attention is being paid to the NCQG’s broader relationship with and implications for the Paris Agreement and its objectives — most notably for how it will ensure adaptation, with developed countries showing a total lack of will to discuss outcome-based thematic subgoals.
Historically, adaptation-related agenda items, such as the National Adaptation Plans, the Nairobi Work Programme, and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), have been marred by procedural delays and foot-dragging. This has especially been the case with the provision of support and effective implementation.
In this context, the NCQG has the potential to redress the lackluster adaptation outcomes of the past. The NCQG can do this by securing an ambitious adaptation commitment expressed as a quantified sub-goal to support the long-term implementation of the GGA framework and its targets.
The delivery of the GGA hinges on the degree of ambition reflected in the NCQG structure, quantum, timeframe, and quality.
In parallel, the newly minted UAE-Belem Work Programme must include the identification and development of different indicators around finance. Specifically, indicators must include international climate finance and the Means of Implementation (MoI) for all GGA thematic and dimensional targets. Only then will it help measure the adequacy of support provided by developed countries to enable adaptation efforts in developing countries.
However, the 60th meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) in Bonn was a missed opportunity. GGA-related mandates were held hostage by deep rifts between developed and developing countries.
The rift centered particularly on the means of implementation and adherence to the principles of the Convention — such as Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC). The modalities for the work programme were another point of divergence in the negotiations.
After lengthy negotiations, the Parties only managed to agree on short-term organizational aspects of the work programme — the convening of technical experts by the SBs chairs to lead the compilation and mapping of indicators. This move left the more substantive issues unresolved. From a technical point of view, finance is clearly an input for adaptation to be measured, and yet developed countries have resisted inclusion of finance indicators.
Meanwhile, the latest NCQG discussions continue to be stalled by divisions on several sticky issues. These include whether to have thematic sub-targets to differentiate an adaptation finance target.
Nearly four months since Bonn, little progress has been made on this subject. We are now on the eve of COP29. To date, developed countries have still not tabled any ambitious quantum proposals, either for overall finance or for adaptation.
The most recent evaluation by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) found that between $215 and $387 billion is needed in adaptation finance for developing countries per year. The current adaptation finance gap is estimated at between $194 and $366 billion per year.
Securing substantial financial commitments for adaptation through the NCQG at COP29 should not be treated as merely optional. This is essential for global adaptation goals and for preserving the trust between developing and developed countries.
Adaptation is fundamentally about strengthening capacities and building the resilience of vulnerable communities and nations on the frontlines of climate change impacts. This can only be achieved through the sustained provision of additional, affordable, concessional, and grant-based finance by the wealthy, historical polluter nations to poor, vulnerable countries.
The stakes are as clear as they are high. Without the necessary support, the Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation with its ambitious targets will fail to be met. The effect of this failure would be to further jeopardize faith in developed countries and faith in multilateralism.
COP29 must reignite hope and trust. This begins with honesty about adaptation finance.