Participants agree on $300 trillion for poorer countries

“joke” and “insult”

Zoff after breakthrough at the climate summit

Poorer countries should receive more money for climate protection. The participants at the climate summit in Baku agreed on this.

The World Climate Conference in Azerbaijan agreed to significantly increase climate aid for poorer countries. In total, at least 1.3 trillion US dollars (around 1.25 trillion euros) are expected to flow annually by 2035, of which 300 billion will primarily come from industrialized countries.

The money is intended to enable developing countries to pay for more climate protection and adapt to the fatal consequences of global warming – such as more frequent droughts, storms or floods.

So far, the traditional industrialized countries have mobilized a good $100 billion in climate aid every year. But according to an independent UN group of experts, the need for external aid is now around one trillion US dollars per year by 2030 – and even 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

After the compromise, several countries expressed their indignation and anger in the plenary session. The representative of Nigeria described the 300 billion US dollars (currently around 288 billion euros), which mainly industrialized countries are supposed to raise annually until 2035, as a “joke” and “insult”. India’s representative protested that they could absolutely not agree with the decision because the commitments were far too small. “We cannot accept this.”

In fact, the criticism no longer has any impact and the decision applies. The statements are more likely to be recorded as a note. The Azerbaijani summit host had quickly sealed the crucial text with the usual blow of the hammer. A number of states felt ignored and complained that requests to speak had been ignored.

According to the agreement, in order to raise the 1.3 trillion annually, the multilateral development banks should also issue significantly more loans or forgive the debts of poor countries. Public money and that of banks should also be used to leverage private investments on a large scale, which are also counted as climate financing.

In addition, other donor countries should be encouraged to participate. The appeal is so broad that climate activists criticize that no one is specifically responsible for this part of the global goal. Germany – like all other countries – is not specifically obliged by the decision to make payments of a specific amount.

Ultimately, a compromise was achieved because it remains partly unclear how the trillions will actually be raised – this will now be the task of the next climate conference in Brazil.

The EU, including Germany, only ventured out with concrete sums during the two-week conference at the very end. The federal government said it was completely unrealistic that trillions of euros in money were coming from budgets. She appealed to countries like China and the rich Gulf states, which have earned a lot from oil, gas and coal, to also pay up. According to a 30-year-old UN classification, these states, like India and South Korea, are still considered developing states – and therefore as recipient countries.

Germany has so far promised around six billion euros per year for climate financing. The future federal government must decide how much it will be in the future after the new Baku decision. No concrete, predictable obligations were imposed on Germany in Baku.

At times, the world climate conference, which was extended by more than 30 hours, threatened to fail. Entire groups of states temporarily left the negotiations a few hours before the end. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens) accused the host Azerbaijan of ignoring, among other things, the interests of the particularly vulnerable island states that are threatened by rising sea levels in the negotiations. The organizers from the petrostate, 90 percent of whose export revenues come from oil and gas, praised themselves: Despite “geopolitical headwinds”, they had made every effort to be “an honest broker” for all sides.

The EU also feared until recently that resolutions from the last climate conference in Dubai could be lost in the negotiations in Baku, for example on the hard-won move away from oil, gas and coal. The concrete formulation that Germany celebrated as “historic” at the time is now missing – the Dubai decision is simply referred to in technical jargon.