With the climate talks on the brink, campaigners and experts call the latest draft a "disgrace" and say "no deal is better than a bad deal".
On the final official day of the COP29 climate talks in Azerbaijan, climate experts and civil society figures have responded with dismay at the latest text on climate finance. They have called on negotiators to reject what they refer to as "a slap in the face" and "an insult".
The new text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) sets a climate finance goal of $250 billion per year by 2035. This would more than double the previous target of $100 billion per year and is consistent with earlier reports that European Union negotiators had been discussing a figure of $200-300 billion.
It is, however, a small fraction of the $1.3 trillion per year figure around which developing countries had united during COP29. When asked about the "$200 billion" figure rumoured to be being discussed by developed countries on Wednesday, negotiators from Bolivia, Uganda, and Kenya asked "is it a joke?" The $1.3 trillion sum takes into account the fact that developing countries are estimated to need $215-$387 billion per year for climate adaption, $447-$894 billion per year to compensate for loss and damage, and billions more to facilitate an energy transition.
The new NCQG text also clarifies that the proposed $250 billion per year will come "from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources". This also goes against developing countries' demands that a significant portion of the goal come from governments, not including private finance mobilised by public money. Earlier in negotiations, the Arab Group had set a figure of $440 billion, India $600 billion and the small islands bloc $900 billion for specifically public finance.
The responses so far to the latest text among climate experts, activists, and civil society figures have been clear and firm.
"Our expectations were low, but this is a slap in the face," says Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa. "What trick is the presidency trying to pull? They've already disappointed everyone, but they have now angered and offended the developing world...We need developed countries to grab the bull by the horns and put forward a number that reflects the actual needs of developing countries. Rich countries need to bypass this president and negotiate eye to eye with developing countries."
"$250 billion is far, far too low and it literally makes me tremble with anger," says Namrata Chowdhary, Chief of Public Engagement at 350.org. "We need $1.3 trillion...and every subtraction of the money is a betrayal of the Global South...Any ambition we talked in the morning is missing."
"We join civil society, communities, and movements to condemn the text, to condemn the developed nations," adds Gerry Arances, Executive Director of the Centre for Energy, Ecology, and Development (CEED). "Who comes with that kind of face and shows up here, [claiming] to head climate leadership. Is that climate leadership? We will not allow communities in the Global South to be be dictated to by these rich nations."
"What the Global North is offering is not just a joke; it is an insult to all the delegations present at COP29," says Fadhel Kaboub, a member of the Independent Expert Group on Just Transition and Development. "I call on all Global South delegations to stand strong, stand united, be firm, and be ready to walk out if necessary...No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal. We are the global majority...If the historic polluters of the global minority do not get serious about its responsibilities, then we may have to start restricting access to our strategic minerals and our markets, and start leveraging our collective economic weight to save the planet for all of humanity."
"This $250 billion from developed countries is a disgrace," says Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director at the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The developed countries are fully aware of the importance of climate action, yet they have the audacity to offer this paltry amount. They are saying that MDDs (Multilateral Development Banks) are going to be providing the fund, which means more loans. There is no reference to grants, which means there is no commitment that climate funds will be provided in form of grants. There is no reference to fossil fuels, but just a remark on just transition. If this is how money is going to be provided, we urge developing countries to stand firm and reject this with dignity. No deal is better than a bad deal."
"This is worse than what we imagined. The $100 billion that was tabled in 2009 was even better than we got today," says Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples' Movement on Debt and Development referring to the calculation that, given inflation, $250 billion in today's money is 30% less than $100 billion was in 2009. "There are many clever words used in the text to allow the developed world get away with a lot of things...We can't accept this text. We rather fight for something much bigger than accept something that doesn't have a shred of decency. We call upon developing countries to demand what is right fully theirs or, if not, walk away."
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The text will be continue to be negotiated today in what has become a race against time. Many diplomats will leave Baku on Saturday, potentially leaving talks logjammed without quorum to make a decision.
Additional reporting by John Okot.
James Wan is the Managing & Climate Editor of African Arguments. He is the former Acting Editor of African Business Magazine and Senior Editor at Think Africa Press. He has written for Aljazeera, New Humanitarian, BBC, The Guardian (UK) and other outlets. He is a fellow of the Wits University China-Africa Reporting Project and former member of the African Studies Association-UK council.
