Opening plenary COP 29. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth
By Umar Manzoor Shah
BAKU, Nov 11 2024 – The Head of Impact Assessment and Adaptation, Henry Neufeldt, UN Environment Programme Copenhagen Climate Centre, has called for increased climate adaptation funding, particularly for developing nations facing significant climate risks.
UNEP’s latest report reveals an acute adaptation finance gap, with current international funding for developing countries at USD 30 billion—far below the USD 200 to 400 billion annually required to meet their adaptation needs. According to Neufeldt, this funding shortfall demands substantial commitments from developed nations, which should ideally set an ambitious climate finance goal at COP 29.
He also warns that, without further action, global temperatures could rise by 2.6 to 3.1 °C by the end of the century, unless adaptation is addressed. Even with current pledges, achieving the safer 1.5°C target may be challenging, highlighting an increased need for adaptation funding. Equity is a key consideration, as many vulnerable nations bearing adaptation costs have contributed little to emissions.
Neufeldt advocates for a shift from loan- to grant-based funding to prevent further indebting these countries. Neufeldt also stresses that transformational adaptation is necessary, requiring a shift from incremental changes to more systemic solutions, such as altering agricultural practices or planning coastal retreats.
Moving toward COP30, Neufeldt hopes to see national adaptation plans with clear, costed actions and a robust global adaptation framework to track progress. Ultimately, he sees these efforts as critical to helping vulnerable communities build resilience against climate impacts.
COP29, dubbed the ‘finance COP,’ began with strong statements about the urgent need to raise funding.
COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev said in his opening address that it was known that the “needs are in the trillions.” While he also acknowledged that a realistic goal for what the public sector can directly provide and mobilize seems to be in the “hundreds of billions.”
However, there was little choice: “These numbers may sound big, but they are nothing compared to the cost of inaction. These investments pay off.”
UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell also emphasized the importance of reaching a new global climate finance goal in Baku. “If at least two-thirds of the world’s nations cannot afford to cut emissions quickly, then every nation pays a brutal price,” he said. “So, let’s dispense with any idea that climate finance is charity. An ambitious new climate finance goal is entirely in the self-interest of every nation, including the largest and wealthiest.”
Henry Neufeldt, the Head of Impact Assessment and Adaptation at the UNEP Copenhagen Climate Centre.
Neufeldt plays a key role as the chief scientific editor of UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report 2024: Come hell and high water.
IPS: What are the primary reasons behind UNEP’s call for a dramatic increase in adaptation finance, especially at COP 29?
Neufeldt: The report highlights a substantial adaptation finance gap. This gap is the difference between what countries need for climate adaptation—an estimated USD 200 to 400 billion based on national adaptation plans—and the USD 30 billion currently coming from international public finance to developing nations. This significant discrepancy—roughly eight to fifteen times less than needed—underscores the urgency for developed countries to increase adaptation investments. COP29’s focus will include a new collective quantified goal for climate finance, covering both adaptation and mitigation, with hopes of setting a more ambitious financial floor to address this gap. Additionally, we urge bilateral and international development banks to boost their contributions to developing countries.
IPS: Will global temperatures indeed rise by 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius by the end of the century? What are the most urgent adaptation priorities?
Neufeldt: If no further action is taken beyond current commitments, we could see temperature increases of 2.6 to 3.1 degrees Celsius by century’s end. However, fully implementing all pledges, particularly from G20 nations, could limit this rise to around two degrees—still above the safer target of 1.5 degrees Celsius, which we’re now crossing for the first time this year. Current adaptation needs to align with a 1.5-degree temperature rise, but we’ll need far more for higher temperatures. We don’t yet know the full scope of those needs, as models for future adaptation costs under those conditions are still developing.
IPS: How significant is the adaptation finance gap, and how are current financing flows falling short?
Neufeldt: As mentioned, the finance gap is between USD 200 and 400 billion annually, while current flows are only about USD 30 billion. This shortfall is specific to developing countries; we aren’t even calculating the adaptation finance needed in developed nations, where costs are likely higher due to greater infrastructure.
IPS: How do you envision the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance helping bridge this adaptation gap?
Neufeldt: We have high hopes for the NCQG negotiations in Baku to set an ambitious adaptation finance target. Ideally, this target will better reflect the needs of developing nations, ensuring they receive the financial support required for effective adaptation measures.
IPS: Why is it critical to consider equity and integrity in adaptation finance, particularly for developing nations facing climate impacts and debt burdens?
Neufeldt: Equity is essential. Much adaptation finance still comes as loans, which increases debt burdens on the least developed countries. These countries, which have contributed the least to emissions, are now forced to bear the costs of adaptation. In our report, we stress that more finance should come as grants rather than loans to avoid further indebting these vulnerable nations. Two-thirds of adaptation needs are in areas that are public-sector-dependent, making it hard for private investment alone to meet these needs.
IPS: How do capacity building and technology transfer factor into adaptation efforts? What are the main barriers?
Neufeldt: Capacity building and technology transfer are crucial. Unfortunately, efforts in these areas often lack integration, with adaptation financing, capacity building, and technology transfer frequently handled separately. Much of the technology we need is already available but requires significant investment to be accessible. Capacity-building efforts should be rooted in local capabilities, social inclusion, and gender diversity for long-term effectiveness. Current approaches, like short-term workshops, often lack sustainable impact.
IPS: What new financial instruments could unlock additional adaptation funding for both the public and private sectors?
Neufeldt: We outline several instruments in the report, including risk management tools, insurance, and debt swaps. These mechanisms can help mobilize private sector involvement, especially with support from the public sector through blended finance and partnerships that reduce investment risks.
IPS: Many adaptation projects lack sustainability without ongoing funds. What steps can be taken to ensure their long-term impact?
Neufeldt: Long-term success depends on involving local partnerships in project design and implementation and focusing on adaptive management with predictable financing. Projects should consider future climate risks rather than just immediate ones, as this forward-looking approach can prevent maladaptation. Building overall resilience through improved governance, health care, education, and infrastructure also significantly reduces climate vulnerability.
IPS: Can you provide examples of transformational adaptation, and why is a shift toward this approach needed?
Neufeldt: Transformational adaptation goes beyond incremental adjustments. For example, in agriculture, instead of minor adjustments to current practices, transformational adaptation might mean completely rethinking crops and farming methods unsustainable under changing climate conditions. For coastal regions, it may mean planned retreats rather than just raising seawalls. Long-term, transformational planning considers how climate change will reshape economies and societies, pushing for proactive rather than reactive measures.
IPS: The report notes that adaptation costs often fall on developing nations. What can be done to address this imbalance?
Neufeldt: We advocate for more grant-based support for the most vulnerable countries, such as least-developed nations and small island states. Financing mechanisms should include options like debt-for-climate swaps to alleviate financial pressures. Additionally, reforming international finance structures to offer more concessional loans and debt exemptions could empower these countries to address climate risks more effectively.
IPS: Looking ahead to COP30, what progress would you like to see to protect vulnerable communities from climate impacts?
Neufeldt: COP30 is a chance to secure new national adaptation plans and more adaptation-focused national contributions. These plans should include costed, prioritized actions for adaptation, which would make tracking and measuring progress easier. We also need a finalized framework to assess the global adaptation goal, with robust metrics for tracking. And of course, continued emphasis on technology transfer and capacity-building is essential for sustainable adaptation outcomes.
IPS UN Bureau Report
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);
