SA is not happy with the draft text for climate finance released on Thursday, saying it lacks financial commitments.
At the plenary session on Thursday, SA delivered a firm rejection of key aspects of the draft New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) text, citing a lack of ambition and accountability from developed countries.
‘Key quantums missing’
In his intervention, forestry, fisheries and the environment minister Dion George underscored the absence of numerical commitments. In the text, exact numbers were replaced by “XXX” place holders.
He said: “We remain concerned that there is no reference to the mobilisation quantum of $1.3-trillion and the provision quantum of at least $600bn. These goals, or quantum, are the main mandate we have under this agenda item.”
He also criticised the place holder approach, arguing that removing figures from proposals erodes trust and leaves critical decisions to the eleventh hour.
Concerns about debt and Grants
George reiterated SA’s position that climate finance must not exacerbate debt burdens for developing countries.
“We need clear commitments to grant-based funding. New finance must be affordable, high in concessionality, and must not affect the debt sustainability of developing countries,” he said.
On the issue of support, George stressed the importance of non-debt instruments: “Considering debt sustainability concerns, and the cost of capital in developing countries, particularly in Africa, it will be fundamental to ensure that more than 50% of climate finance mobilised to support the achievement of the new collective quantified goal should be through the use of non-debt instruments, including financial support mobilised by bilateral channels, multilateral funds and multilateral development banks.”
Rejecting intrusive domestic policy action
SA expressed strong opposition to several provisions in the draft agreement for their potential to undermine national sovereignty and unfairly burden developing countries. Regarding paragraph 47, which calls for domestic policy actions addressing macroeconomic policy, flows of finance and domestic resource mobilisation, SA said it could not support the paragraph in its current form, saying it called for intrusive domestic policy action.
Concern about country platforms
In response to paragraph 50, which encourages the use of country platforms for finance co-ordination, SA expressed serious reservations: “Country ownership is critical, and developing countries need to retain the choice of policy and institutional arrangements to utilise in accordance with their needs and their priorities.”
Opposition to financial architecture reform
SA also rejected paragraph 52, which calls for specific actors in the international financial architecture, such as central banks, to undertake actions it said are not aligned with the mandates under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Focus on a just transition
On the critical issue of a just transition, George highlighted the need for a balanced approach: “The current text continues to lack balance between national and international dimensions of just transitions. While we are happy to exchange views and experiences on our national contexts, our focus in this multilateral process must be on facilitating international co-operation, to address international and domestic barriers, and to unlock opportunities, particularly fair access to the transition’s economic opportunities, including through provision of adequate, quality finance and means of implementation.”
Loss and damage left adrift
The intervention also highlighted the draft’s failure to establish a sub-goal for loss and damage funding, despite its critical importance for nations most vulnerable to climate change effects. Joseph Sikulu, Pacific director of 350.org, had earlier described this omission as unacceptable: “Nothing less than $1-trillion in grants per year will be enough.”
Finance for mitigation
SA emphasised the need for finance aligned with global mitigation goals. George said: “We would like to see language that makes clear that we want global mitigation pathways consistent with 1.5°C, and that means we need finance commensurate with 1.5°C. This is of the highest importance to SA. We had made a constructive input on getting the secretariat to present technical options for reducing the average cost of capital, and it is very disappointing that this has not been taken up.”
As the negotiations near their end, SA emphasised the need for significant progress to reach a consensus. “In conclusion, we remain far apart, and much will need to be done to bring us to an agreed conclusion,” the minister said.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.