G77 + China group reemphasised the responsibilities of the developed countries while rejecting the draft NCQG text and UK has committed to cutting emissions by 81% by 2035 in its updated NDCs
The second day of COP29 began with a strong rejection by the G77 + China group of the substantive draft text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). The group stood firm on their stance on the NCQG asserting that the current draft cannot serve as the basis for negotiations. They pushed for an ambitious annual target of $1.3 trillion, exclusive only to developing countries that would cover adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage.
In a response to a push by developed nations on expanding the climate finance donor base, the G77 + China group emphasised that the NCQG must be a direct responsibility of developed nations, with no shift of obligations to developing countries. They stressed that the NCQG should not become an investment goal and demanded transparency mechanisms consistent with the Enhanced Transparency Framework. Additionally, they called for developed countries to fulfil their previous $100 billion commitment. The group wants a new draft text to be produced before the next round of negotiations on Wednesday.
This stance on NCQG is not new. The group made similar interventions during the Bonn Conference in June this year. The grievances remain unaddressed until the end then. The silver lining this time would be that the rejection of this text comes on the second day of the COP summit. Which means negotiators have more than a week to discuss and draw up another draft.
Rebecca Thissen, global advocacy lead at Climate Action Network International, said, “The recent call from the G77 – representing 80% of the world’s population – signalled that some substantive omissions in the text were problematic and needed to be addressed. The call for an ambitious quantum in the range of the trillions is essential for the Global South to cope with the climate crisis, the G77 collectively called for 1.3 trillion per annum.”
In the late development on Day 1, new operational standards for a mechanism of Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement was passed. This deals with the functioning of a voluntary carbon market under the UN’s supervision. But while this is viewed as tangible progress Article 6, which has been stuck on issues that have plagued it since 2015 — when the Paris Agreement was signed — there is still no clarity on the methodology to implement it. So it is still too early to understand the implications of what this progress would mean, especially for the developed world. “The decision on Article 6.4 is a significant step forward. There is still some time till the rubber hits the road, as now methodologies for implementation will have to be finalised, but this would be sooner than later. This positive development, however, shouldn’t take our attention away from the NCQG at this COP as carbon markets are one of the means to deliver on the NCQG. Higher the NCQG, higher the finance opportunity for the developing world through various channels,” said Vaibhav Chaturvedi, Senior Fellow, Council for Energy Environment and Water (CEEW).
The UK, meanwhile, announced its updated National Determined Contribution (NDC) at COP29 on Tuesday. The country has committed to cutting emissions by 81% by 2035. “This is a huge opportunity for investment, for UK businesses, for British workers, if we act now to lead the world in the economy of tomorrow,” said UK prime minister Keir Starmer. But while the target is aligned with the 1.5°C target, according to the Climate Action Tracker (CAT), it does not translate into a fair share of climate action for the UK.
About The Author
You may also like
No G20 country qualifies as a “climate leader”: Global South index
With COP29 underway, new report reveals how Big tech fuels false climate information
‘12 days to land a deal’: COP29 opens with calls for accessible climate finance, carbon market consensus
Brazil submits updated NDCs; only $28 billion of adaptation finance delivered in 2022, $387 billion per year needed
The silver lining in Trump’s win? Market forces driving global climate action, not politics