Climate Negotiations In The Age Of Failed Multilateralism (1)

 Climate negotiations are taking shape in the lead-up to the 30th United Nations Framework Conven­tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of Parties (COP) on Cli­mate Change (COP30) which holds in Belem, Brazil, toward the end of 2025. An important aspect of these negotiations leading up to COP30 is the just-concluded 62nd Climate Ne­gotiation of the Subsidiary Body of the UNFCCC (SB62), held in Bonn, Germany. This meeting is expected to prepare the groundwork for and shape COP30. Therefore, its out­come will determine the direction of agreement or none at COP30. Cen­tral to the discussions and negotia­tions at the Bonn meeting – among other topics like the Global Goal on Adaptation and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) – was the question of financing for climate solutions and adaptation funding. Some develop­ing countries and climate justice civil societies are pushing for pub­lic financing to play a central role in the mobilisation of the $1.3 trillion commitment for climate financing, which will be in addition to the $300 billion agreed at last year’s COP29 in Baku. The developed countries, which are to provide the funds, are resisting further commitments by promoting private funding over pub­lic commitment.

However, more important is the question of the mechanism and structure with which the agreed fund will be delivered. This is an­other bone of contention. While civil societies want the focus to be on public funds, developed countries want the private sector to play a ma­jor role in delivering the fund. This, as rightly noted by some climate jus­tice organisations, is a way by which the developed countries aim to shift responsibility away from direct com­mitment. But it is a known fact that private finance mostly focuses on profitable investment. Therefore, the focus on private sector involvement for climate financing shows a lack of a sense of urgency by developed economies.

Climate financing structure is faulty and neocolonial

But like I noted in previous in­terventions, issues around climate financing go beyond just the fund. The reality is that the structure and mechanism for climate financing and fund accounting are funda­mentally flawed and colonial in nature. The process for measuring climate financing and what counts as climate financing is nebulous, complicated and questionable, for instance, measuring a developed country’s climate finance through its financial contributions to mul­tilateral financial and development institutions. Furthermore, the fund disbursement, in terms of what as­pect of climate finance is funded and which developing country re­ceived the fund, is at the discretion of the developed countries, which makes climate financing another tool to further the foreign, strategic and business interests of the donor country.

Fundamentally, no donor coun­try will fund any climate action or solution or project that aims to help a recipient country to develop its capacity for self-reliance, especially in terms of mitigation technology and industrial development and ad­aptation capacity. Most developed countries still favour the current economic status quo that ensures that developing economies continue to serve as a source of raw materials, markets, cheap labour and dumping grounds for obsolete technologies. But climate change is basically in­tegrated into the socio-economic development of countries and can­not exist outside of the prevailing socio-economic structure. Unless climate justice involves restructur­ing the current global economic and financial system, climate solutions and action, in terms of funding ad­aptation and the development of mit­igation technology and the economy, will follow the existing status quo that undermines the economy and development of third world and less developed countries.

A just climate financing system should involve developed econo­mies and major polluting corpora­tions accepting responsibility for funding climate solutions, not by a benevolent and debt-based ap­proach, but through a climate ac­counting system that ensures that developed countries contribute a fair share of climate funding based on parameters that factor historical emissions and social and economic costs of emissions into contribu­tions of each developed country and major polluting corporations. The recent development in the global maritime industry, where a levy system on greenhouse gas emissions was agreed upon – even if too little – showed that a similar and more comprehensive arrange­ment is possible at the global climate change governance level. The funds can be pooled in a central platform where the principle of need-based disbursement will be agreed upon. Furthermore, it will mean climate change technologies, for both ad­aptation and mitigation, are made available to developing and underde­veloped economies to advance their capacities for climate-compliant and sustainable development.

Failed Multilateralism and Growing War­mongering

But nothing exemplifies the lim­itation of current climate negotia­tions more than the current milita­rism and failure of multilateralism while the Bonn Conference is going on.

*To be continued

*Ibrahim, a Nigeria-based climate justice advocate and social activist, writes via [email protected]. (He is currently the director of African Research Centre for Climate and Environmental Justice (ARCCEJ), an independent and progres­sive climate justice research and advocacy centre, based in Nigeria)