The world climate conference in Baku ended in anger and disappointment for Africa. While the negotiations continued well into the night from Saturday to Sunday, the African delegates still present in the capital of Azerbaijan, with the feeling of having their arms twisted, accepted an agreement that does not in any way respond to their main expectations. The funding promised for 2035 is “Too weak, too late and too ambiguous. Africa leaves Baku with realism and resignation because COP29 ends far below our expectations. “When Africa loses, the world loses.”lamented Ali Mohamed, special envoy of Kenyan President William Ruto and spokesperson for the African group.
The 300 billion dollars (287 billion euros) per year taken from industrialized countries are in fact very far from the 1,300 billion dollars proposed by the continent to be able to finance the needs of the energy transition and adaptation to the consequences of more and more climate change. The desired figure for this new climate financing goal – New Quantified Collective Goal (NCQG) – appears in the text of conclusions but its materialization depends solely on the will of all actors, public and private.
A few hours before the final blow, the African group had once again reiterated its “red lines” denouncing a proposal that is far from what is needed and that undermines all the hopes of developing countries. “Adjusted for inflation, this figure of 300 billion is even lower than the 100 billion promised in 2009” he warned. The decisions taken in Baku also do not respond to requests to rebalance funding between adaptation and mitigation. Nor the guarantees so that this climate financing is provided to the most vulnerable countries in the form of donations and not loans, increasing the debt of the States. Africa called for a clear funding target to be adopted for mitigation, adaptation and management of loss and damage, these irreversible impacts caused by warming.
Blackmail upon the arrival of Donald Trump
Under these conditions, was it still necessary to approve the agreement? The negotiators faced this dilemma until the last moment. Present in Baku, Augustine Njamnshi, co-founder of the Pan-African Alliance for Climate Justice (PACJA), which brings together 2,000 civil society organizations, summarizes the frustration experienced: “This agreement does not serve our interests but it was that or nothing. We faced blackmail in which Europeans in particular took advantage of the arrival of Donald Trump to the White House or the rise of far-right parties to power in Europe to make us understand that we had more to lose than gain if we reject the agreement. . Once again, Africa and developing countries found themselves against the wall. »
In this atmosphere of tension, Africa has also failed to advance the debate on the attribution of a special status that it has been demanding since 2015 in the name of the particular circumstances facing the continent: a region of the world that has contributed the least to global warming, but already is suffering the most serious consequences in a context of still massive poverty. Several South American countries, hostile to this recognition that could lead to the granting of specific support to Africa, opposed it.
The successful conclusion of negotiations on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which sets the rules for carbon markets, is ultimately the only progress that can satisfy states that expect a lot from market mechanisms to find new sources. of financing. Article 6 defines the conditions for the transfer of emission reductions between States, provided for in the Paris Agreement. Multinationals that have set carbon neutrality as a goal for 2050 will also be able to use the UN mechanism.
Voices of local people
As a low-emission continent, Africa hopes to take advantage of available margins to promote its right to pollute. Several countries such as Ghana and Kenya have already signed agreements with industrialized countries. This architecture, which according to its promoters should attract investments, however, worries civil society organizations who fear that the voice of local populations is not taken into account. Environmental and social safeguard clauses are provided, as well as a complaints mechanism. “Discussions on financing the fight against global warming are increasingly turning to investment issues. The fate of the most vulnerable populations should not be left in the hands of companies. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement states that it is the responsibility of developed countries to provide resources to developing countries.recalls Augustine Njamnshi on behalf of PACJA.
