COP30 Triples Troubles for Adaptation Finance

BY SAADA MOHAMED 

Three weeks to COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the summit president, Amb André Corrêa do Lago, equated global climate adaptation to the first half of survival and a critical component of human evolution. In his eighth letter, Amb do Lago noted that adaptation can no longer be deemed secondary to mitigation nor an alternative to development.  

This tone was welcomed by climate-vulnerable countries, who hoped that the presidency’s progressive outlook would translate to a strong and comprehensive adaptation package in Brazil. 

The optimism of developing countries, including Africa, was raised by the fact that this year’s summit aimed to shift the focus of the multilateral process from negotiations to urgent and scalable implementation of actions, including adaptation. They, therefore, headed to COP30 expecting that their persistent calls for global adaptation action and support would finally bear fruit. 

For Africa, the key ask was the scale-up of quality and accessible adaptation finance through a new goal that triples the flows to at least $120 billion in public and grants-based finance by 2030. This new goal is as an extension and progression beyond the existing collective doubling pledge of developed countries that aimed to raise $40 billion by this year.  

As soon as the discussions started, Africa came head-on with the first challenge, namely, the lack of a negotiation track in the summit’s agenda, providing a dedicated space for developing countries to raise this demand for a new finance goal. Under such circumstances, a good strategy always prevails.  

In this case, the strategy was to raise this issue in every room where finance and adaptation negotiations were taking place. That and all ministerial and presidential consultation forums. They did, and it worked. 

In the end, this elevated the calls for a new adaptation finance goal. In response, the Presidency included it among the outcomes in the ‘Global Mutirão. Africa and the Global South had their first early win.  

Global Mutirão is the COP30 Presidency’s political package that covers crucial overarching decisions on critical issues such as finance that are usually political in nature and highly contentious. These issues are difficult to reach a consensus on at the technical level. A political package is, therefore, an approach used by the Presidencies to address the deadlock and provide a balanced political outcome through an inclusive and transparent consultation process. 

Regrettably, the political elevation and early wins for adaptation were short-lived. They failed to translate to a strong COP outcome. 

 What did COP deliver?  

The Global Mutirão outcome includes a single paragraph on adaptation finance, which “calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035’’ in the context of the decision on NCQG. 

It urges ‘‘developed country Parties to increase the trajectory of their collective provision of climate finance for adaptation to developing country Parties.” 

This outcome totally contrasts the demands of poor and vulnerable countries. The weak language sets the worst precedence in the history of the negotiations by, notably, failing to specifically refer to the legal mandate of rich countries to provide public finance for adaptation. Consequently, it further marginalises adaptation action and the voices of vulnerable countries. 

Instead, the decision refers to ‘‘all efforts’’ which could imply mobilising resources from all actors and sources, including vulnerable countries themselves, from their limited national budgets. 

Shrinking development finance 

The second part urges developed countries to do what they should already be doing by default, although it is somewhat disjointed from the first part, which supposedly speaks to the “ambition of tripling”.  

This decision should have been based on and directed towards developed countries’ existing legal mandate to safeguard the provision of public finance for adaptation in the face of shrinking Official Development Assistance (ODA), driven in part by the fragmented geopolitical context. 

This framing is dangerous as it exposes poor countries to further exploitation by the profit-seeking private sector and financial institutions through perpetuating loan-based and conditional financing instruments for adaptation. 

At the same time, the vague language not only undermines the urgency and scale of public finance needs for adaptation but also negatively affects its quality, accessibility, tracking, accountability, and transparency. 

COP30 Shielded but also Unmasked the Culprits 

This move forces poor countries to bear a disproportionate financial burden of addressing climate-induced costs amid their prevailing sovereign debt and economic challenges. This is an outright violation of the foundational principles and values of equity and CBDRRC, including the right to development and sustainable development as enshrined in the convention. 

This disastrous outcome was strongly pushed for by historical polluter countries, as it shields them from their obligation to progressively provide public grant-based finance for concrete adaptation actions to developing countries, predictably and transparently. They surely have tested the extent of multilateralism. 

COP30 is indeed the ‘‘COP of truth’’ as it glaringly unmasks the hypocrisy and doublespeak of the Global North and their misguided climate leadership. Initially anticipated to deliver dignity and prosperity to the most vulnerable in the world, COP30 just stripped them of their hope, dignity, and future. 

The summit was supposed to correct past sins, including the omission of an adaptation finance sub-goal in the unambitious climate finance deal adopted in Baku. It failed to do this. Instead, it tripled the troubles of poor nations.  

Heading Home Empty-Handed 

Once again, vulnerable countries are heading back home empty-handed, with not only unmet demands but also the worst outcome for adaptation finance and an uncertain future. This propagates climate injustice by ignoring the painful lived realities of climate-vulnerable countries and frontline communities year after year. 

Global South countries can no longer be fooled by flashy headlines and outcomes. Words such as “tripling” represent false progression of ambition that is figureless, baseless, biased, and, worse, not informed by an assessment of needs.  

Headline outcomes are all about tripling low ambition, poor quality finance, driving inaccessibility, false delivery of adaptation support, disguised political will, and dishonest solidarity and hope.  

Saada Mohamed is a Climate Finance Associate at Power Shift Africa