COP 30 blogs by a Dutch Mennonite

Climate finance.

Last year, in Baku, it was agreed to generate $300 billion annually for climate policy, starting in 2035, for both mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (adapting to climate change).

It was already clear then that this was far too little. Developing countries – which suffer most from the consequences of climate change – were therefore very angry. It was agreed to embark on a process to achieve $1.3 trillion in climate finance annually in the coming years, the so-called Baku 2 Belém Roadmap (B2B).

The wealthy countries, which are required to provide this money, want the private sector – businesses – to contribute to this.

But poor countries want to know where they stand and prefer public money, not loans. They already have enough debt. This creates a lot of friction.

Therefore, it’s far from certain that this topic will become an official agenda item in Belém. A special meeting to set the agenda will be held next Sunday, one day before the start of the COP.

Climate policy per country or union of countries

Every country participating in the UN climate negotiations, which includes virtually all countries worldwide, must submit its own climate plan: a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). This NDC must specify how much a country expects to reduce its emissions and by when.

The goal is for the “old” wealthy countries to be climate neutral by 2050 at the latest.

The Netherlands, as a member of the European Union, must adhere to the EU’s NDC, which was submitted at the last-minute last Wednesday.

For several years now, it has been clear that the NDCs are not ambitious enough to limit global warming to 1.5°C. That’s why calls for greater ambition are being made from all sides.

Adaptation

As the consequences of climate change become more visible worldwide, adaptation is becoming increasingly important. At COP 30, an attempt will be made to establish the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

Negotiations have been ongoing for years in various stages to determine what should, may, and should not be included. Countries are also required to submit an adaptation plan, a National Adaptation Plan. Developing countries need financial support to implement these plans.

An Adaptation Fund exists for this purpose. It was previously agreed to double contributions to this fund by 2025, but this target was not met.

Further negotiations on this matter will be undertaken at COP 30, in light of a recently published report by UNEP: there is a financing gap of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

(Rain)forests

Host Brazil wanted to hold this COP in the Amazon: this way, the international delegations can see firsthand how important these “lungs of the world” are.

It’s a shame, however, that a major road was built right through the forest in the run-up to COP 30.

Nevertheless, Brazil wants to work on protecting the (rain)forests and has established the Tropical Forest Finance Facility, which will be officially presented at COP 30. The goal is to reduce deforestation worldwide and protect indigenous communities.

A few years ago, in Glasgow, a coalition of countries promised to work on protecting (rain)forests. But little has come of this so far, partly because forest fires are increasingly destroying forests.

As in recent years, religious leaders have called on the international community to put aside their differences and work together on better climate policy. Moreover, the World Council of Churches has contributed to the so-called Global Ethical Stocktake, a Brazilian initiative to involve actors other than national delegations in the climate discussion.

The various statements can be found below

We are almost halfway at COP 30. The amount of parallel conference tracks is overwhelming. Where do we stand?

Perhaps the most important thing is the multilateral process itself. These climate COPs provide the only worldwide platform we have to collectively dig into the problems of the climate crisis. Yes, the positions are far apart, as they have been for decades. But building bridges begins with talking, not with walking away. Ultimately the true challenge for the COP process is to bend theories and plans into real world actions and reforms.

Unfortunately, today many countries are focusing on warfare and are spending all-to-much money on arms.

According to Climate Network International every dollar poured into the military produces over twice the greenhouse gas emissions of a dollar spent elsewhere. Thus the military is responsible for an estimated 5.5% of total global emissions. So it’s time to include military emissions in the COP process, and press for a different way of spending this money.

Instead of military budgets the world needs much more climate finance, for loss & damage, for adaptation, resilience and a Just Transition towards a sustainable, clean and more equitable future, based on low-carbon economies.

For that to happen we all know we need to phase out fossil fuels. Although it is not on the official agenda of this COP, a movement is building to finally start addressing this – for real.

Colombia is leading the way in this movement, with the support of a growing number of countries. It won’t be easy, since the power of the big fossil fuel companies is intertwined with geopolitics. But there is no alternative.

A related big challenge is the mining and dissemination of rare earth minerals, necessary to build green economies that are no longer based on the use of fossil fuels.

Here again, huge injustices are looming: rich countries just taking what they want, leaving others empty-handed. As many countries in the Global South are rich in these minerals, the hope is that they stay foot and protect their resources in order for their own populations to benefit.

In short: it is high time for the climate process to influence geopolitics, instead of the other way around. We are at a pivotal point in time.

Halfway at COP 30 in Belém most issues are still open. Moreover, several important topics are not on the official agenda.

One of these topics is the transition away from fossil fuels. At COP 28 in Dubai, it was agreed that such a transition must take place. However, no agreements have been made on how and when. Various initiatives and ideas are circulating in Belém, which are receiving support from a growing number of countries. Agreement on further steps may be reached next week.

Another important issue is climate finance.

Last year, at COP 29 in Baku, the new target of $300 billion by 2035 was set, even though it was already clear that this would be far too little. Therefore, a mandate was given to determine whether contributions could be increased to $1.3 trillion by 2035, the so-called Baku to Belém Roadmap (B2B).

At COP 30, a debate is going on about whether B2B should be an agenda item for future COPs. Whether anything concrete will emerge from this discussion next week remains to be seen.

Climate finance also plays a significant role in other agenda items.

This year, the Global Goal on Adaptation is supposed to be finalized. This includes a list of indicators to determine the climate resilience of the various countries. However, the African Group of countries has so far blocked the adoption of these indicators, arguing that it is pointless as long as there is insufficient funding to actually use them and finance adaptation projects.

Financing adaptation is a hot topic.

There is a strong call to triple contributions to the Adaptation Fund to at least $120 billion by 2030. And this must come from public funds. Private investment in adaptation projects is extremely scarce, especially in developing countries.

It is clear that wealthy countries face the challenge of generating significant amounts of public funding. This is especially difficult in an era of polarization in many of these countries, coupled with high military expenditures leading to budget deficits. Therefore, opportunities are being sought to leverage as much private funding as possible.

But for recipient countries, it is vital that they are not confronted with an even greater debt burden than they already have. Debt relief, debt swaps (to finance climate projects) and reform of the international financial architecture are crucial.

Amid all this, much more is happening.

Host country Brazil launched the first global action plan on health and climate. And a major initiative to combat disinformation was presented, the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change. Several countries have expressed their support for this initiative.

The World Council of Churches and other religious organizations are (co-)organizing numerous side events and press conferences, including on the ethical challenges of the climate crisis and the initiative for a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. Such a treaty would be well-suited to the energy transition away from fossil fuels.

Parallel to the COP, the Peoples Summit is organizing many events. Last Saturday, a massive climate march was held, with some 30 000 participants, including many religious groups and organizations. Part of this march was a “fossil fuel funeral,” with three coffins for coal, oil, and gas, respectively.

Indigenous groups were also prominently present, demanding that their voices be heard both within and outside the COP.

The ecumenical service in Belém last Sunday highlighted some of the sensitive issues of the COP, and named the ongoing destruction of the Amazon and the increasing oppression and murder of people fighting to preserve it.

We still have a long way to go.

Today at COP 30 in Belém a joint press conference by the European Commission and the European Parliament gave some insight in where the EU stands. For climate activists there was little reason to celebrate.

There were some tantalizing questions, notably on climate finance and the phasing out of fossil fuels. Two days ago at COP 30 a coalition of countries emerged supporting the establishment of a Roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. Many EU member states joined this coalition, but not all. The idea for such a Roadmap has been floating around for some time, and could be an outcome of this COP.

It sounds good, because we all know we need to end the use of fossil fuels. But what does that mean for other regions in the world?

Over and over again delegates and activists from developing countries point to the fact that their countries can never realize an energy transition without the financial and technical means to do so. Many of these countries are depending on fossil fuels for their economic development, while a considerable part of their populations doesn’t even have access to energy in the first place. Whereas rich countries such as those in the EU see possibilities for ‘green growth’, based on clean energy. They have money to invest!

Not for nothing the demand for climate finance from the rich world to developing countries is sounding louder and louder. Without that there can be no climate justice, no Just Transition, no adaptation, no climate action.

Wopke Hoekstra, the EU commissioner for Climate, Net Zero and Clean Growth dodged direct questions on climate finance, simply saying that the EU stands by its commitment made last year. He referred to the overall climate finance goal of $ 300 billion by 2035, which is far too little.

But the most appalling words came from Portuguese European Parliamentarian Lídia Pereira, who is heading the EP delegation in Belém.

She said: “If politicians ask their constituency ‘are you willing to give up on your salary, on your standard of living, for the sake of an agenda?’ probably the answer will be no”.

Wow. As if that would be the proper way to go!

The question should be: where can we find the necessary money to help fund a Just Transition, not only for our own people but for people elsewhere as well, especially the most vulnerable?

The answer is simple: there where the money is, so with the outrageously rich businesses and individuals all over the world. You politicians have the power to install taxes, not only on carbon, but also on international financial transactions, on crazy wealthy individuals and a lot more!

According to the Oxfam Report 2023, nearly two-thirds of all wealth created since 2020, a total of $42 trillion, went to the richest 1%. Just to say…

So come on, EU. Show some leadership!

ADDENDUM: Tonight the European Union has overcome internal differences on the Roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels. Now the EU as a whole supports this, and has issued a text proposal for the Roadmap.

COP 30 in Belém, Brazil, ended Saturday evening with a meager political accord.

Nonetheless, the multilateral conference circuit has proven its worth once more. Without these talks, and without the Paris Accord adopted exactly 10years ago, the world would be in a worse place than it is today.

The commemoration of 10 years ‘Paris’ in Belém was sober, because countries agreed that the pace of change is way too slow.

Yes, ‘Paris’ works, but ambition to lower greenhouse gas emissions needs to be ramped up considerably to keep the goal of 1.5°C global temperature rise somewhat in reach.

Exactly this lack of ambition was emphasized over and over again by a large group of climate vulnerable, middle income and rich countries, including the European Union. They were therefore extremely disappointed that a proposal for a Roadmap to Transition Away from Fossil Fuels (TAFF) did not make it into the final text.

But as a compromise COP 30 President Corrêa do Lago announced at the closing plenary session that he will install such a roadmap as his initiative. A COP Presidency lasts for a whole year, until the new president is installed at the next COP. Hence, this coming year a lot of international conferences can be expected, in which all stakeholders – countries, businesses, civil society – will discuss how to move away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner. Colombia will be an important driver of this track. Together with The Netherlands, it will host a global conference on TAFF in Santa Marta, Colombia, in April 2026.

Although this track is not an official part of the UNFCCC process, a progress report will be presented to COP 31.

Perhaps sometime in the future the tracks can merge again. In the mean time, higher ambition initiatives will have to find their way in the national climate plans, NDCs.

Why was it not possible to agree to a fossil fuel roadmap as part of the outcome of COP 30?

Because many other countries, including India and most African countries, are not ready to phase out fossil fuels. They don’t have enough financial and technical resources to realize the necessary domestic economic growth simultaneously with a clean energy transition.

Unfortunately fossil fuel producers such as the OPEC countries (mis)use that situation to their advantage.

This stalemate will continue to hamper global climate policy progress, until enough climate finance is provided by the developed world.

This is the very issue that has been paralysing the climate talks at their core for so many years. The overall climate finance goal (NCQG) agreed to last year falls far short of what is truly needed.

So the call for more climate finance, including technology transfer, was louder than ever in Belém.

An important part of this call is the demand from developing countries for much more adaptation finance, to at least $120 billion per 2030.

For as long as the global mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is nowhere near adequate, the climate crisis accelerates and so does the need for adaptation to the reality of climate change – a nasty vicious circle.

In Belém the Global Goal on Adaptation was expected to be finalized, including a series of indicators to measure the climate resilience of countries. But the African group of countries, followed by others, refused to accept these indicators, saying that there was no point in that unless adequate means of implementation (finance) would be ensured.

After a long and hard battle during the full two weeks, finally a compromise was agreed with a call for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035. The GGA was adopted with the understanding that the indicators will be refined next year.

A small victory for this COP.

Other important topics of COP 30 included the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan. Both were adopted to the relief of many.

Under the JTWP a new action mechanism will be set up to help countries to make their energy transition fair and equitable for all – including workers.

And after much ado – including temporary footnotes on the nature of ‘gender’ – the GAP was finally adopted after many, many years of hard work. The GAP must ensure that women and girls and others who are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, are at the heart of climate policies around the world.

Not all countries were happy though, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and – alas – the Holy See.

A new element in the talks presented the issues of international trade and unilateral trade measures. Although the EU maintains that its Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is not a unilateral trade measure but a necessary climate policy tool, it is perceived by many countries as a nuisance, hindering their economies.

The issue of trade in relation to climate policy will now be addressed in annual dialogues and a high-level event over the next three years. Whether the USA will participate in those conferences remains to be seen.

Although the USA was not present in Belém at federal level, a couple of state governors were, as well as campaigners and NGOs.

The USA’s absence was a relief for some, as it made talks perhaps a little easier.

For others though, notably the EU and other developed countries, it was a bitter pill to swallow. Without the USA on board it is difficult for them to provide more public climate finance to the extent needed, at least without new measures, e.g., taxing international financial transactions or the extremely rich.

These countries want China to deliver climate finance as well, but it is not obliged to do so under the Paris Accord, contrary to the ‘old’ developed world. According to many developing countries and NGOs, China is already doing more than its fair share by providing cheap renewables and technologies throughout the world.

As this COP was held in the Amazon, deforestation and forest restoration were expected to be major topics.

Just before the start of the COP the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) was presented, which will use investment returns to protect forests all over the world. Although the TFFF may not have received as much enthusiasm as was hoped for, initial (promised) contributions now amount to $5 billion with a goal of $125 billion.

Additionally, COP 30 President Corrêa do Lago will set up a second Roadmap: on Halting and Restoring Deforestation. An important element of that will be the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ rights, their participation in decision making processes and the use of their traditional knowledge and practices in forest protection.

Indigenous Peoples’ organisations were prominently present in Belém, demanding to be heard in the official negotiations. A letter to that extent was sent to the COP 30 organisers, and a couple of sit-in protests were held.

At the same time their and other civil society organisations rallied at the Peoples Summit, which was taking place a couple of kilometres away simultaneously with the COP.

Many side events and other meetings were organized there. Halfway, a big climate march was held, with more than 30 000 participants.

In the Blue Zone itself, the area of the official negotiations, the ecumenical team – with delegates of the World Council of Churches, ACT Alliance and the Lutheran World Federation –,  the Interfaith Liaison Committee and other faith based partner organisations organized a series of press conference, side events and stunts. As ever, the cooperation was fantastic.

A fire on the penultimate evening of the COP in one of the country pavilions disrupted the negotiations. Fortunately, nobody was seriously injured and talks resumed the next morning.

Concluding: in spite of ever louder calls, both by climate vulnerable developing countries and civil society (faith based) organisations, global climate policies still fall far, far short. Only drastic reforms of the international financial architecture, trade regulations and (investment) laws, combined with innovative tax measures and debt relief for developing countries, can provide enough incentives to move the world into the right direction.

Learning to share the planet between all of us, is a long, long process.

Let’s keep working together inside and outside COPs.

The next ones will be in Antalya, Turkey (COP 31) and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (COP 32).