Q&A: 'Business-as-usual' on climate finance for the EU

The EU's position on climate targets is lacking ambition, while the block is following a business-as-usual approach to climate finance, non-governmental Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe head of climate Sven Harmeling says. But he still sees potential for progress at the UN Cop 29 climate summit in Baku from 11-22 November.

How are the EU's negotiation positions shaping up for UN climate talks?

EU conclusions on climate finance are still quite vague. While this gives EU negotiators some room for maneuver, it also fails to send a clear signal that the bloc is ready to step up on financial commitments and move subsidies away from fossil fuels. This remains a key area that needs to be addressed.

The draft suggests that the EU is essentially following a business-as-usual approach, aiming for the $100 billion goal and looking to get a bit more from the private sector and other countries. However, this falls short of what is needed. The real requirement is more in the range of trillions. That will be a challenge at Cop 29.

And how positive is the EU's related draft negotiating mandate for Cop 29?

There are some promising elements in the draft, such as the emphasis on transitioning away from fossil fuels and the expectation for investors to align with the new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) that countries must submit next year. There is also mention of finance from the private sector. However, support for developing countries in their transition is one of the weaker points. Many elements are familiar — this is typical of the Cop process where progress builds on previous agreements — and the agreements at Cop 27 and Cop 28 around moving away from fossil fuels are broadly steps in the right direction. Now, it is crucial for Cop 29 to push further, with more countries ready to move away from fossil fuels.

Aside from the lack of detail on 2040 emission cuts, what other points are lacking in the EU's draft COP position?

One significant issue is the lack of ambition in the EU's targets, particularly the commitment to a 55pc reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2030. Many scientific analyses suggest that this is insufficient for the EU's fair share to keep the rise in average global temperatures to the 1.5°C limit, compared to pre-industrial levels. The target is not up for discussion. That is a point of criticism for us. We are also advocating for climate neutrality by 2040 and this target is not explicitly stated in the draft.

Are you concerned about a backward shift in the EU on international climate action after the elections, especially with Hungary now holding the presidency?

There has been no significant backward shift in the EU's climate policies. It's more about progressing to the next level. The Green Deal will largely remain intact, although there will be tweaks, which is necessary because every law needs to be assessed for its effectiveness and potential improvements. We will also see more detailed plans on how to advance clean and green industries with clear objectives.

At this stage, I would say the EU's draft Cop negotiation mandate is not worse than previous mandates for past summits. And the EU presidency's role, in principle, is to moderate the process and gather views from member states. Cop decisions are not typically where tough domestic decisions are made. For instance, the draft negotiation mandate being prepared for EU climate ministers says very little about the 2040 emissions reduction target currently on the EU agenda.

How optimistic are you about Cop 29 reaching strong conclusions?

There is potential to make progress, particularly in furthering the transition away from fossil fuels and encouraging more ambitious NDCs from countries. However, there are also significant concerns, particularly regarding the insufficient provision of finance and the slow phase-out of fossil fuels in both developed and developing countries. The new finance goal currently under discussion and to be agreed at the summit is one of the most critical deliverables for Cop 29, and we have yet to see if the EU or the US is truly prepared to shift gears on this front.

How beneficial is holding another Cop in a fossil fuel-producing country like Azerbaijan?

It's not ideal for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process to have a fossil fuel-based economy hosting another Cop, especially one that has not previously played a significant role in the UNFCCC. Azerbaijan's human rights situation is also a concern. Civil society plays a crucial role in national climate debates as a positive force. This role might be compromised in a country where freedoms are restricted. However, I don't want to overstate the importance of the host country on the overall outcomes of a Cop. Ultimately, the results depend more on the will of the most powerful countries than on the presidency.

By Dafydd ab Iago