Many of the lofty announcements made at last year’s COP28 climate conference in Dubai have yet to translate into action weeks ahead of COP29 in Baku. Isa Mulder assesses the lack of progress.
At the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN’s annual climate change conference, world leaders gather to discuss the future of our planet. Business representatives and non-governmental organisations also come from all over the world to contribute to the discussions. This mega-gathering understandably attracts media and journalists, and so it is the perfect opportunity for announcements that catch the world’s attention.
As a result, each year comes with a dizzying array of commitments and pledges in service of a greener world. But what happens when the COP ends, the spotlight is turned off, and the leaders all return home? Do the good intentions translate into concrete action, or does what happened at the COP, stay at the COP?
As we near COP29 in Baku (Azerbaijan), Carbon Market Watch looked at some of the major carbon market and carbon finance-related announcements made last year at COP28 in Dubai.
Lacking integrity
Many carbon market champions pledged to enhance the integrity and quality of the voluntary carbon market. Six major carbon crediting standards – American Carbon Registry, Architecture for REDD+ Transaction’s TREES, Climate Action Reserve, Global Carbon Council, Gold Standard, and Verra’s VCS – announced they would work together on common principles, but little has been announced publicly since then.
Simultaneously, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, the Voluntary Carbon Market Integrity (VCMI) initiative, the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi), the We Mean Business Coalition, the Carbon Disclosure Project and the GHG Protocol announced they would establish an end-to-end integrity framework that was supposed to be a first step in the organisations’ collaboration. However, while each of these organisations has progressed on its own frameworks, it’s unclear how these connect to a grand “end-to-end integrity” framework. In fact, some of these organisations are contradicting each other in the guidance they are releasing. For example, VCMI and SBTi have starkly differing views on the role that carbon credits should play in corporate decarbonisation.
A group of EU countries released a statement on restoring integrity in the voluntary carbon market, but their recommendations did not result in further action and have not had a clear political impact.
Where’s the money?
Another type of announcement favoured at climate summits is the boasting of financial pledges towards worthy causes, such as ecosystem restoration. For example, the People, Forests and Nature: Partnership for the New Climate Economy (NCE) initiative in the Democratic Republic of Congo is meant to receive $62 million in support from public, private, and civil society partners, such as the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, the Bezos Earth Fund, the Walton Foundation, Conservation International, the Moore Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. While consultations for this were supposed to take place in 2024, no public updates have been made on any activity.
Nothing has been publicly announced either by the Asian Development Bank’s Climate Action Catalyst Fund (CACF), which promised to provide over $100 million as up-front financing to high-impact climate mitigation actions, even though the bank said the CACF would start operating from 1 January 2024.
It seems that COPs are excellent moments for making the loftiest of non-binding statements that hold the promise of transformative change, but fail to deliver much in the way of concrete action: progress appears to be marginal rather than transformational. We need not only greater ambition at COP29 but also greater honesty. Action speaks louder than words – and we need to see action that can speak for itself.
