ECO 4, SB62

Say “neigh!” to the Trojan Horse of private finance

With the Baku to Belém Roadmap open consultation with stakeholders commencing yesterday, ECO feels it’s time for a bit more reflection on the Baku Debacle, and why the NCQG negotiations were doubly devastating. Rich countries’ total failure to provide significant grant-based climate finance in the face of the escalating climate crisis leaves many countries seriously asking how they can deliver the ambition negotiated in these halls. This is why we have seen valiant efforts here in Bonn to ensure that Article 9.1 remains on the table for discussion.

But the lack of real money is not the only reason to be concerned about the Finance outcomes from Baku. There is a second part to the Baku outcome, in particular the Baku to Belém Roadmap and its link to Article 2.1c discussions, that warrants even more alarm. In the absence of debt relief and progress in fair taxation, combined with diminishing ODA and increase in military spending, ECO is starting to see the whole push for private finance in a terrifying new light.

Because private finance isn’t just “low quality” finance that can fill the gap in the face of insufficient public grant-based finance. Private finance – loans, corporate investments, and potentially even carbon offsets – are a strategic way for Global North actors to massively scale up their extraction, profiteering and leverage political control over the Global South.

ECO is reminded of the story of the Trojan Horse from Ancient Greece, in which a giant wooden horse is left as a “gift” to the people of Troy and wheeled into the city, only for Greek soldiers to sneak out of it at night and kill the citizens of Troy.

Global South countries should be deeply wary of the exploitation and profiteering that they will be subject to, should they create “enabling environments” for loans, corporate investments and carbon offsets under the label of climate action. Private finance will facilitate a new wave of colonialism while cynically waving a climate flag. ECO wonders… When rich countries claimed their pockets were empty of public finance, so private finance would have to fill the gap… was this the plan all along?

At the Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 Trillion and 2.1c discussions, developing countries must say “neigh!” to the Trojan Horse of private finance.

***

Wanted: NDCs that keep us alive

During the first Global Stocktake in 2022-2023 we heard many times that the GST outcomes will be implemented through the NDCs to be submitted before the end of September this year. ECO is all in for enhanced NDCs aligned with 1.5°C and climate justice. What this entails, in the context of historic responsibilities and common but differentiated responsibilities, is rapid emission reductions with developed countries leading and the provision of adequate finance from developed countries to developing countries that responds to their needs and is in accordance with countries’ fair shares.

The path to this passes through plans for the phase out of fossil fuels, protecting and restoring ecosystem integrity, and halting and reversing deforestation by 2030 with developed countries taking the lead. It also means that ambition should be aligned with and respond to the latest science, and accommodate equity within climate ambition. NDCs need to include policies and measures for adaptation aligned with National Adaptation Plans. Importantly, people are fast losing faith in governments’ ability to deliver ambitious climate action in a just, equitable manner that secures the interests of vulnerable and frontline communities and workers, and upholds the rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are disappointed by the NDCs 3.0 that have been published so far, as they are mostly insufficient on all these aspects.

ECO would like to highlight that four Global North countries – the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia – are collectively responsible for nearly 70% of projected new oil and gas expansion from 2025 to 2035, according to new research from Oil Change International. These are countries that should be leading the way in the energy transition by rapidly scaling up renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency — not in the expansion of fossil fuels. Their NDCs must show a pathway to transitioning away from fossil fuels that builds on concrete timelines.

But ECO also observes inspiring exceptions from the smallest and most vulnerable amongst us. Despite being in no way comparable to developed countries that are historic emitters and have the capacity to undertake ambitious and transformative climate action, Vanuatu is preparing a third NDC that is not only 1.5°C-aligned and GST-responsive but also boldly net-negative — already absorbing more carbon than it emits, and committed to moving beyond net zero. Vanuatu’s NDC aims for a fossil fuel-free Pacific, rapid decarbonization, and a complete shift to a circular economy. It embodies high levels of ambition on adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage, all grounded in human rights, justice, and equity. It is shameful that countries that are blameless in the climate crisis are practically forced to undertake ambition greater than their fair share to make up for the failures of countries in the Global North. The injustice of this implication, especially for those that are dealing with existential risks, is jarring. We expect the GST Annual NDC Dialogue to showcase such bright spots and produce a valuable summary with insights for us all, with a view to restoring justice in this process. We ask all parties to live up to the GST commitments and to deliver NDCs aligned with 1.5°C and climate justice. Developed countries must lead the way, and in accordance with their fair shares. That is the only way to ensure a just and equitable transition for all.

***

Oooooh… A ghostly presence inthese halls?

Despite the sunny weather outside, there has been a ghostly chill of Bonn these past few days. It has sometimes given us shivers in the negotiating rooms and through the halls.

Could it be that the ghost of the U.S. is still haunting these halls and sapping the courage of delegates from taking the ambitious steps that are needed to advance climate justice?

This Bonn meeting is the first time in nearly 30 years of the UNFCCC process that the United States government has not sent a delegation. Yet the presence of the US and its troublesome track record still haunts the negotiations. ECO notes two spooky instances where the vestiges of U.S. obstruction have caused quite a stir, delaying the plenary and adoption of an agenda for the Bonn meetings.

• First, the insufficient NCQG outcome in Baku, where developed countries conveniently hid behind the US to dilute their climate finance obligations, and

• Second, the chaotic and disruptive tariffs and trade measures introduced by the Trump administration in the last few months.

Believe it or not, we’ve even heard rumors that some former US negotiators are sailing under different flags as consultants in these halls?!

This is to say nothing of US military support for genocide in Palestine and its attempt to shamefully criminalize protest at home has actively targeted US NGOs.

There is no denying that on climate or anything else, the conduct of the US is not one to emulate. And yet, we cannot let this ghostly presence in the halls chill the actions that are necessary for climate justice. ECO hopes that developed countries will work hard to distance themselves not only from the current US administration but from the legacy of destruction that the US has led over three decades of climate negotiations. Without the US here to conveniently hide behind, developed countries will only have themselves to blame if trust in the UNFCCC process continues to erode.

***

Adaptation Finance,not a tick box exercise

ECO recalls COP26 in Glasgow with a bittersweet pang – where developed countries committed to doubling adaptation finance by 2025. Overdue, but still a step in the right direction. The Glasgow pledge was more than just numbers. It was a political recognition that adaptation – long neglected, underfunded, and desperately needed – deserves far more than the scraps left after mitigation finance is handed out. The doubling helped push adaptation funding from roughly $20 billion in 2019 to an estimated $28 billion in 2022. That’s progress. But nowhere near enough.

Adaptation finance needs are skyrocketing. The 2024 UNEP Adaptation Gap Report estimates that developing countries will need $215–387 billion per year by 2030 to keep up with growing climate impacts. Meanwhile, international adaptation finance still lags far behind, covering less than 10% of those needs.

It’s time for a new commitment that accelerates the momentum of Glasgow. If the doubling helped lift adaptation from the shadows, it is time to shine a brighter light on it to close in on a pathway to equitable, needs-based public adaptation finance.

Without a financial commitment for adaptation, the Means of Implementation indicators are a box-ticking exercise. We can’t measure progress if we don’t know what we’re aiming for. A new adaptation finance commitment is essential to guide implementation, ensure accountability, and assess whether we are closing the gap for real.

ECO is watching and will not let the Glasgow pledge fade into silence without a new commitment that addresses the needs of those at the frontline. At COP30, the Presidency wants to show the world that adaptation is finally being taken seriously. Adaptation is not optional; it is a matter of right – the right to survival, dignity, and sustainable development.

***

What are you AIMing for?

Despite the rhetoric ECO hears again and again about the importance of participation and hearing from those on the frontlines, We are concerned that many of those people have found themselves left out of the decision-making in Bonn. They have been unable to get their organizations accredited or access badges, or to receive visas for Germany in time to participate. (And ECO suspects that as per usual fossil fuel lobbyists are lurking in halls). To say nothing of Belém, where reasonably priced and accessible accommodation seems as real as carbon offsets increasing ambition.

Now is the time to AIM higher. Many overlook Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings (AIM), but we know AIM is key to strengthening the UNFCCC. Every year, we have excitement about AIM. Then reality sets in as rights-holders and parties raise many issues about participation, but at the end time expires without meaningful progress on ensuring that meetings are inclusive, safe spaces for all, and that increasingly restricted resources are used in the most effective way. (ECO has some trauma from instances of harassment, surveillance, and sometimes reprisals at recent COPs, in countries with virtually non-existent civic space.) This year, AIM higher, use this negotiation space effectively, and make positive changes..

So what should you AIM for? Here’s ECO’s initial easy and friendly checklist:

✅ Require the host country for COP and the SBs to set up a special electronic visa system to issue participant visas within a week. It seemed to work for the last two COPs, so why not replicate and institutionalise?

✅ Ensure that all COP hosts guarantee and provide adequate, affordable, and accessible accommodation. (ECO’s looking at you Brazil.)

✅ Hold yourselves accountable to your previous conclusions stressing the importance of human rights protections in host countries.and ensure a safe space for everyone at COP and the SBs. AIM higher here.

✅ Ensure the Host Country Agreement (HCA) is publicly available and accessible. ECO used the maps, followed the steps, and still came up empty-handed. Mandate the Secretariat to routinely publish HCAs on the UNFCCC website immediately after signing.

✅ Adopt an Accountability Framework that includes, among other things, a robust Conflict of Interest Policy, based on best global precedence. For far too long, Big Polluters’ undue influence in this process has hindered ambition and brought into question the UNFCCC’s integrity. While the small steps around affiliation declarations for registration two years ago have provided a teensy pinch more transparency on who is attending.We need much more to protect this space from those whose raison d’être is fundamentally opposed to the objectives of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. A robust Accountability Framework and conflict of interest policy is essential to providing proof that those who are here are serious about effective, fair and funded climate action.

Make this year a turning point: adopt ambitious conclusions and make them a reality in Belém.

So negotiators, What are you AIMing for?

***