|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready…
|
Ahead of a High Level Ministerial Dialogue on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance and the Pre-COP meeting in Baku this week, Climate Action Network (CAN) is sending a clear and unequivocal message from more than 130 civil society organisations: failure to deliver an ambitious climate finance outcome at COP29 is not acceptable.
The meetings ahead of November’s talks must set the stage for an ambitious final agreement on climate finance that addresses the real and urgent needs of developing countries. The new climate finance goal is a crucial opportunity to get the Paris Agreement back on track, ensuring that global climate action is rooted in justice and equity.
However, CAN remains deeply concerned about the current state of negotiations. Civil society will not accept a last-minute deal that fails to meet the needs of developing countries or excludes the most vulnerable from essential support.
Tasneem Essop, Executive Director of CAN International, said: “The Global North owes the Global South a significant climate debt, estimated at $5 trillion a year. Mobilising these trillions is not only essential, it’s achievable, through tax justice, wealth and polluter taxes, and by redirecting public finance away from destructive subsidies. We need bold action now.
“The new goal must focus on grants, not loans, to avoid worsening the debt burden on developing countries. Without this, we face another cycle of failure, creative accounting, and loose definitions of climate finance. This target must also set clear funding goals for Mitigation, Adaptation, and Loss and Damage. The hard lessons of the previous $100 billion climate finance target have shown us the dangers of vague commitments and inadequate public finance.”
Sanjay Vashist, Director, Climate Action Network South Asia (CANSA) said: “South Asia cannot keep bearing the brunt of climate change induced disasters anymore. Our people and economies barely have any time or resources to recover from the last disaster before we are hit by another. Already this year, intense heat waves have been followed by torrential rain and flash floods, displacing millions of people in Afghanistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, and India, claiming lives, ruining livelihoods and destroying billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure. South Asian economies need trillions, not billions, annually, in grants and not loans, to cope with the devastating loss and damage. Anything less than that would be a violation of the Paris Agreement.”
Sherpard Zvigadza, Coordinator at the Southern Africa Region Climate Action Network, said: “The new Climate Finance goal is critical for Southern Africa in scaling up and achieving its climate change transition to a low-carbon economy, as well as enabling vulnerable communities and ecosystems to adapt to climate change impacts and in building a resilient future. The US$5 trillion demand has to ensure quality finance, be in the form of grants not loans and meet the urgent needs of frontline communities of Southern Africa. It will bring a fresh lifeline and a hope to about 74 million people, largely absent from the negotiating table, who have borne the brunt of climate-induced droughts, flooding, and losses and damages.”
Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead, Christian Aid, said: “The message from all corners of the globe is clear: it is time for developed countries to pay up and provide public finance at scale, in the form of grants, to address the needs and priorities of developing countries. The litmus test is not just the quantity of the money, but the quality too. Governments must live up to their moral responsibility to fulfill their obligations under the Paris Agreement and repay their climate debt to communities in developing countries most impacted by the climate crisis. Money for loss and damage is therefore integral to a deal.”
Iskander Erzini Vernoit, Co-founder and Director, IMAL Initiative for Climate & Development, said: “This letter sets out clear expectations from civil society groups on the minimum grant-equivalent provision amounts that could be accepted in the NCQG for mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage, respectively, based on conservative underestimates of needs. Any less than these amounts would be regarded as a gross dereliction of duty by developed countries and an unacceptable compromise by developing country representatives.”
SOURCE: CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK