One of my focal points for my participation in COP28 was to engage with the risks that frontline communities increasingly face due to climate change. While there was much that I learnt (some new, some confirmations of prior suspicions), the overwhelming takeaway was how much we don’t know, and how far behind we are on being able to affect the kind of meaningful, knowledge-based change that is needed. There were a few key challenges that I identified: 1) core literature and general understanding around climate change is centred around the illusion of gradual, linear warming which is absolutely ascientific, and perpetuates the view that we can suffice with incremental climate action alone; 2) the private sector, specifically private finance, faces significant challenges in funding and supporting the ‘less bankable’ but very necessary climate infrastructure needed to keep frontline communities alive; 3) the funding that we do have for these projects is not being allocated effectively because indigenous and marginalised communities are not brought to the forefront of climate policy.
The first of these challenges was best highlighted in the inaugural press conference of the first-ever Global Tipping Points Report which I had the pleasure of attending in my day at the Blue Zone. This report analyses, in-detail, the non-linear effects of climate forcing and global warming on global tipping points and world systems damages. Tipping points are essentially identified as milestones that, when reached, will not only accelerate further climate change (including flooding and global warming), but also massively and disproportionately affect interlinked world systems such as agriculture, infrastructure, biodiversity, etc. These tipping points include such events as Antarctic ice sheet instability, Amazon dieback, coral reef and permafrost degradation, etc. An in-depth study of these tipping points (which are notably not a new concept) destroys the linearity assumptions of climate change upon which much of climate action is presupposed. Already, at 1.2° C warming, we’re at risk of severe coral reef degradation which will lead to severe loss of biodiversity, as well as major food systems insecurity. These impacts disproportionately affect frontline communities that rely on the stability of their habitats to survive, and therefore, they require disproportionate amounts of adaptation support that goes far beyond the incremental levels that our adaptation funds are based on, now. The hopeful thing is that there are also positive tipping points that can be triggered by radical and effective policy-making so as to incentivise decarbonisation and phase out fossil-fuels entirely.
The second major challenge to effective frontline adaptation was the issue of finance. This, incidentally, was also a major focal point of discussion in COP28 with diverse initiatives being explored and inaugurated left, right, and centre. From attending talks about the role and potential of Islamic banking in providing climate financing, to exploring innovative strategies to make adaptation funding projects in marginalised communities ‘bankable’, it seemed that everyone had their eyes on the money at COP28. The two main issues in financing seemed to be the following: 1) there seemed to be a dearth of robust industry standards, especially in up-and-coming banking fields such as Islamic banking, that would make them feasible options for large-scale global projects; 2) the adaptation or innovation projects that need the most funding are not the type that will be easily picked-up by risk-averse investors, and the structures necessary to minimise risk in terms of climate finance and make these projects feasible and attractive are lacking. However, there was a significant and heartening effort towards making those necessary changes from the private sector representatives that were present at COP28, so all hope is not lost. I had the pleasure of seeing at least one major mutual fund or bank or… something (I forgot exactly who was speaking) waive their loan application fees for upcoming climate finance projects, which was nice.
Finally, the issue of fund allocation – making sure that available funds are allocated equitably to both the most effective and the most urgent projects – is a major quandary that people are concerned about after having agreed to, and expanded, the Loss and Damage Fund and the Adaptation Fund. In a conversation with the Lead Climate Finance Negotiator for Australia who headed many of the negotiations for the creation of the Loss and Damage Fund, I got to ask her about the feasibility of trying to further expand these funds so soon. Her stance was that it was entirely unfeasible to try and approve greater funding when states are still trying to figure out how to effectively allocate their previous funds, and that approving greater funds in agreements won’t work whilst we’re still not getting the money to where it needs to go. So how do we get the money to where it needs to go? Indigenous communities have made their voices heard at COP28 and stated that they and their knowledge systems need to be trusted, empowered, and at the forefront of climate initiatives so as to make sure that the systems in place for helping frontline communities can actually achieve their goal. The Loss and Damage Fund goes a long way in doing that, for the first time bypassing the rule that only governments and governmental organisations can be accredited for adaptation funding, thus empowering those indigenous and marginalised communities whose interests are not represented by their governmental bodies, to seek equitable financing independently. But there is still a long way to go with that, which is what leads us to aspirations from some that COP30 might just be the Indigenous People’s COP.
I’d write a conclusion but this is long enough. In short: much to see at COP, and much to learn. We need to take better and more radical care of our frontline communities. Goodbye.
Leave a Reply