Recognise ‘Un-enabling’ environment that prevents climate finance access, says Global South at UN talks in Cartagena

Priorities of developing countries

Counterview from developed countries

Lessons from $100 billion

African Group of Negotiators (AGN), the Arab Group, Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) and Least Developed Countries (LDC) agreed on the need to include an agreed upon definition of ‘climate finance’  to address issues of additionality of finance and double counting that they believe were problematic in the delivery of the $100 billion goal. 

Developed countries / groups did not mention the need for a new climate finance definition. The focus was instead on needing to expand the sources of finance to include various public, private, domestic and international actors. 

‘Un-enabling’ environments 

Need for recognition of ‘un-enabling/ environments’ preventing access to climate finance in the Global South was highlighted. This included the need to address high costs of capital for low-carbon transitions, high debt burdens, and existing imbalance in geographical concentration of climate finance in the new goal. The need for grant-based, concessional finance was stressed. 

Contributor base

Arab Group and AGN opposed any language on recipients and contributors, suggesting that there should not be any addition of new responsibilities for developing countries for the new goal. 

EU, USA called for an expansion of the contributor base, stating that ‘modern economic realities’ of different countries must be considered. 

Structure of new goal

LMDC, LDC, Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean and Alliance of Small Island States called for the goal to be structured to address mitigation, adaptation and Loss and Damage, potentially through sub-goals for each category. They suggested the goal be needs-based for each of these areas of climate action.

• EU proposed multi-layered structuring of the goal according to sources or actors of finance providers instead.
• United States suggested a design consisting of multiple “layers” as well, with the overarching layer being ‘a global investment goal for all Parties.’ 

Timeframe 

Most (not all) advocated for a period of 2025-2030, with revisions in the quantum as needed thereafter. They also called for NCQG cycles to be in line with the national climate plans of countries (such as NDCs) and the UNFCCC’s Global Stocktake process. 

Switzerland mentioned a 10 year ‘set point’ goal, that is, to have ‘x’ amount given annually by 10 years from all actors and sources in line with the ‘overarching investment goal’ they suggested as part of the structuring of NCQG. 

Burden Sharing

AGN, Arab Group, and LMDC advocated for explicit burden sharing arrangements among developed country contributors, regardless of the structure of NCQG that gets decided. For example, that it be specified in some way the scale and in what way which developed country is contributing. This was suggested as part of increasing accountability and predictability of finance flows. Ghana, Gabon, South Africa among others also supported this view.