SB60 Press Statements

We are here, once again, to convey our views on SB60, as representatives of broad constituencies drawn from the African continent. Here, we represent Africa in its diversity, including civil society, Women, youth, Parliamentarians, Indigenous People & Local Communities, smallholder producers, pastoralists, Scholars and others.

We came to Bonn with renewed hope that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) discussions will be honest and frank with all parties committed to seeing that the NCQG will be based on the priorities and needs of developing country and support country-driven strategies, with a focus on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

We came to Bonn with the hope that seeing the devastation climate change is visiting our countries and people, the rich countries will be eager and willing to indicate the Quantum as per article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement to allow developing countries to plan their climate action. But the hopes have faded, and we are worried about the apparent conversion of negotiations to endless workshops, which we believe are delaying tactics.

SB60 is crucial in sending positive signals on whether we will have a successful COP29, or it will end up as another annual ritual, another talk-shop adding to the pile of decisions and declarations which remain unimplemented, only to wait for another COP for another round of negotiations. We have perfected the art of semantics and taking hardline positions on a grave matter which is catching up with all of us, irrespective of our geographical locations.

The desire of all of us – parties and Non-Parties delegates – is to see COP29 as a climate finance COP, to reflect on the urgency in addressing the ever-elusive question of financing climate action. Could this be slipping away? There are forces within this SB60 who could be scheming a different theme, to, once again, divert attention on climate finance and relegate the subject to the periphery. We should emphatically say NO. Climate finance is the biggest elephant in the room, and however long it takes to deal with it, we should understand that it will never go away.

We are appalled that the negotiations on (NCQG) started on a wrong trajectory with Loss and Damage being pushed out of the agenda justifying with lame excuse that it is not necessarily specified under article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. This assertion points to a deliberate effort by countries from the north to interpret Article 9 of the Paris Agreement in a manner that is convenient to them without referring to provisions of Article 4 of the UNFCCC convention which is clear on the obligation of developed countries parties to provide adequate finance to the developing countries as opposed to the language of “mobilisation” of resources.

The new semantic, “mobilization of financial resources” is merely privatization of climate finance within NCQG, thus surrendering poor countries to climate-debt speculators, further impoverishing countries clutching from debts.  This market-based approach helps developed countries to escape their obligations on the provision of climate finance as per the Convention and Paris Agreement.

Similarly, the negotiations on the global goal on adaptation (GGA) are focusing more on the indicators while the main enabler of this agenda, which is the means of implementation, is being vehemently fought by the parties from the developed countries. Without clear indications on the means of implementation, GGA is an empty shell and it is not fit for purpose.  Adaptation must be funded from public resources and must not be seen as a business opportunity open to private sector players.

We also wish to state that we will never relent in our demand for affirmation of Africa as a” special needs and circumstances for the region”. And we urge the AGN, despite frustrations, never to give us on this crucial status which differentiates us from others, backed by science and imperatives of climate justice. We express our deep concerns about the current negotiation on NAPs which features “special circumstances for least developed countries (LDC) and Small Island States”, attempting to amend the provisions of Article 4 1e of the UNFCCCC convention. This, once again, is an injustice for Africa and its people.

As we conclude the SB60, we call on Parties to close ranks on NCQG, GGA and L&D. As we reiterated during our opening statement last week:

1. We find no basis for these negotiations, at SB60 and also during the COP29, if the NCQG does not address the priority needs of communities at the frontline of the climate crisis by providing funds for adaptation and loss and damage. NCQG must take into account critical adaptation and Loss& damage needs of the vulnerable communities in Africa and other developing nations. It must encompass financial projections for undertaking actions in the spheres of adaptation, loss and damage, mitigation and just transition in supporting developing countries to transition to low carbon development pathway. Read more Exit Statement.SB.60.ACS.11.06.2024

Opening Statement: SB60_statement.04.06.2024