Another lap, another delay. In the last ten days, representatives from almost 200 countries gathered in Bonn for the meeting of the so-called subsidiary bodies of the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a meeting that takes place every year at the end of spring and where the bases are agreed for the negotiations of the Climate Summit (COP), which this year takes place in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November.
The keyword of climate negotiations this year is financing, with one of the central points being the expected agreement on the New Quantified Collective Objective (NCQG) to support climate action. After the great promise to start abandon fossil fuels and the agreement on the loss and damage fund sealed at COP28, in Dubai, it is time to put the necessary means for this ambition on the table.
But this Thursday, on the last day of the SB60 agenda, the press conference of the presidents of the subsidiary bodies, scheduled for 11 am, ended up being postponed. At the time we sent the newsletter, the joint plenary meeting to hear statements from the parties, initially scheduled for the early afternoon, began after 7pm. Similar to what happens at the COP, the SB meetings were not yet sufficient to reach conclusions at the scheduled time.
The Global Strategic Communications Council (GSCC) network summarized what happened this way: “What a fortnight! Delhi reached 50°C and Prime Minister Modi’s hegemony has faltered. The far right won big in the European elections. Macron risked his political future in Paris. In London, Prime Minister Sunak jumps from gaffe to gaffe. In South Africa, the ANC fought for its political future. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warned that we will exceed 1.5°C before 2030. Copernicus scientists have claimed that 2024 will be the hottest year ever. And in Bonn? The climate envoys did what they always did: argue, boast, delay, drag. Reassuringly predictable.“
Despite long nights and little sleep, there were few conclusions on the most critical issue: the money needed for climate action. At this time, there is no agreement on the amount required, the so-called “quantum”. There were some proposals: the African Group asks that around 1.3 billion of dollars [1,2 biliões de euros] annually until the end of the decade, the Arab Group suggests around 1.1 billion dollars [1,02 biliões de euros] (between public and private funds), India recommends one billion dollars [932 mil milhões de euros]. For reference: the OECD calculates that only in 2022 will the richest countries have managed to reach the target of 100 billion dollars (about 93.2 billion euros) of climate financing (yes, ten times less than the amounts on the table).
Less developed countries warn that they cannot move forward if they do not have the means to make long-term investments, something very difficult when the loans they can access always have too high interest rates. What is being asked for is not just the generosity of the richest countries: it is the responsibility due to the impact that the forms of production of this wealth have on the planet’s climate, disproportionately affecting other less developed nations.
And in Bonn, in the end, it was not even possible to reach an agreement so that the NCQG contains, for example, a chapter on the loss and damage fund. After all, if the money doesn’t come from there to support communities that are victims of climate catastrophes, where will the money come from?
“It is difficult to ignore the disconnect between calls for increased ambition and the lack of progress at the conference center,” describes the daily report made by the Earth Bulletin Network (EBN), summarizing the contradictions of this SB60. “If countries do not take seriously the messages of the Global Stocktakeour chances of staying within the limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius are over”, summarized one of the delegates in Bonn.
“The large number of unresolved issues prepares us for two hectic weeks in Baku”, concludes Gaia Larsen, from think tank World Resources Institute. Until then, it will depend on civil society in each country to pressure their governments (particularly those in the global North) so that, when they send their representatives to COP29, they do so with the awareness that time is running out to act at a global level. global – whatever the costs. After all, we already know that prevention is cheaper than cure.
