The United Nations Office at Geneva
Multimedia Newsroom
UNCTAD Press conference - 4 November 2024
/
53:19
/
MP4
/
3.1 GB
THE LEAST DEVELOPED COUNTRIES REPORT 2024 – Leveraging carbon markets for development
UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) launched today the Least Developed Countries Report 2024 exploring how carbon markets can connect economic growth with climate action. By linking these goals, carbon markets offer a pathway to mobilize funds for sustainable development in the world’s most vulnerable economies.
DESCRIPTION
STORY: UNCTAD / Trade and Development Report
TRT: 03:09
SOURCE: UNCTAD
RESTRICTIONS: NONE
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH / NATS
WEBSITE: https://unctad.org/ldc2024
DATELINE: 04 NOVEMBER 2024, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND
SHOTLIST
1. Wide shot, exterior, Palais de Nations
2. Med shot, press room
3. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General : « Of the 20 countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, according to different studies, 17 are least developed countries. »
4. Med shot, speaker on screen, journalist, photographer
5. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General : « Financial gaps in LDCs are widening, and the investment deficit in these countries keep s getting worse. »
6. Med shot, press room
7. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: « In short, carbon markets seek to solve a concrete economic problem: how to assign a price to something of high value to the planet but low value in the market. »
8. Med shot, journalists
9. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: “As we approach COP29 in Baku next week, with a primary focus on climate finance, this report serves as a wake-up call on carbon markets.”
10. Med shot, journalist
11. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: « LDCs play a minimal role in global greenhouse gas emissions, contributing less than 4% of the total. Yet, as mentioned, they face some of the most severe impacts of climate change. There is significant untapped potential in LDCs, with ample opportunities to create carbon credits through projects in forestry, agriculture, and renewable energy. »
12. Med shot, control room
11. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: « Unfortunately, global carbon markets are currently divided and unclear. Carbon markets are fragmented due to a multiplicity of regulatory frameworks, standards and institutions, leading to a wide variation in carbon prices across different market segments. »
13. Med shot, journalist
14. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: « A crucial factor for LDCs is establishing a viable carbon price, and the price proposed by UNCTAD’s study is at least $100 per tonne. However, the current price stands at just $10 per tonne. »
15. Med shot, journalists
16. SOUNDBITE (English) Rebeca Grynspan, UN Trade and Development Secretary-General: « We need a stronger push for harmonization across different standards and regulations. LDCs cannot—and should not— be forced to navigate a spaghetti bowl of climate regulations. »
17. Various shots
STORYLINE
As the world confronts intertwined climate and finance crises while seeking to advance on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), carbon markets are increasingly seen as key drivers of climate ambition and capital flow.
They enable countries to trade carbon credits – permits to offset a specific amount of emissions – allowing sellers to earn revenue and contribute to climate action.
The least developed countries (LDCs) are already engaged in carbon markets and among the early movers in emerging trading mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
The Least Developed Countries Report 2024 examines how these markets could bridge gaps between economic growth and climate action in LDCs and mobilize capital for sustainable development.
It makes clear that while carbon markets offer promise, they are not a substitute for official development assistance or climate finance. Instead, they serve as one of many tools to support LDCs’ green structural transformations and global emissions goals.
Using data-driven analysis and case studies, the report provides a roadmap for LDCs and their development partners to unlock the potential of carbon markets for sustainable growth.
Full report: https://unctad.org/ldc2024
Production date: 04 November 2024
Creator: UNCTAD
Subject topical: ECONOMICS
Corporate name: UN TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT – UNCTAD
Teleprompter
Good morning, Good morning, Everybody
here and elsewhere connected. Welcome to today's news conference on the launch of
the least developed countries Report 2024 by UN Trade
and Development with US today with Secretary General
Rebecca Greenspan, who will share key findings
from the report and joining. Of course, for further insights
into the technical aspects is
Mr Roger.
He's chief of
UN's LDC section in the Division
for Africa, LDCs and special programmes. He's the overall responsible as well
for this
publication.
Following their remarks will open the floor for the questions you know,
the drill name, outlet and whom you direct your question to.
Thank you very much, Secretary General.
Thank you. Thank you all for being here.
Uh, let me, uh, start by asking
or stating why this report matters now
and
let me try to give some context to it.
First of all, we go for cop 29. Yes.
And so it matters because of that, because it's about carbon markets.
And, uh
uh, the least developed countries, uh, we need to shed light,
uh, on the least developed countries on how carbon markets
can be more effectively leverage
to support sustainable development
and economic growth at the same time, particularly
for these that are the most vulnerable countries
in particular,
carbon markets can help close one of the great
paradoxes of sustainable development in least developed countries.
The fact that they are
And let me quote here, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres
and I quote
these countries are at the front line of climate disasters
but at the back of the line in terms of the resources they need
to address and adapt to climate change.
End of quote
Of the 20 countries
that are most vulnerable to climate change according to different studies,
17 are L DC.
17
of the 20 countries that are most vulnerable to climate change are
L
least developed countries
and financial gaps
in L DC
are widening
and the investment deficits in LD CS
keeps getting worse. So
these are countries that are not closing the gap because we can say OK,
they are the most vulnerable.
But gaps are
you know, uh uh
uh
shortening or know how to say uh are widening. Yeah, but it will be good
if we can say
gaps per se, but they are decreasing.
Uh, but no,
the gaps are widening.
So LD CS need
around $462 million just in investments
to get closer to the 7%
growth rate that was established in the 2030 agenda.
So from the 45 LD CS, we have 45 least developed countries from the 45 LD CS.
Only one country, Rwanda,
is going to meet the target of the SDGS of 7% growth rate only women.
And this is where carbon markets
come in.
You know,
carbon markets can bring much needed
investment into the least developed countries,
not only for climate action but also
for growth for structural transformation more generally.
But first
we need to understand how carbon markets work.
At their core carbon markets are trading
systems designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
A company or individual invest in projects
that reduce emissions elsewhere
to compensate for their own emissions.
This can include initiatives like renewable energy,
uh, reforestation,
methane capture from landfills,
and these projects generate carbon credits
that can be sold in the market.
And that's how the carbon markets
are created.
In short, carbon markets seek to solve a concrete problem of economics.
How to give a price to that which has a high value for the planet
but a low value for the market.
So carbon markets have great potential
in LD CS
because they have much of these things. Yes, for
forest and tilt,
soul and worked
sun and wind and captured.
And this represent
a huge opportunity for carbon removal and sequestration,
offering the potential
to generate
substantial carbon credits
and at the same time
promote sustainable land use.
But to cap on these opportunities for the least developed countries,
a lot has to be done
because as we approach cop 29 in
Baku next week,
whose main focus will be on climate finance Precisely
this report is a wake up call on carbon markets,
modest progress, but with a great potential ahead
if we decisively support LD CS.
So what are the key findings of the report?
2024.
So
first LD CS play a minimal role in global greenhouse gas emissions. You know,
uh, they contribute less than 4% to total gas emissions. However, as mentioned,
they face some of the most severe impacts of climate change.
There is an uncapped potential
in the LD CS LD CS have significant opportunities
to create carbon credits through projects in forestry,
in agriculture and in renewable energy.
But unfortunately,
global carbon markets
are currently divided and unclear.
Carbon markets are fragmented
due to multiplicity of regulatory frameworks,
standards and institutions,
which leads
to a wide variation of carbon prices in different market segments.
So
the complexity that have been developed because there
is no and not a unified framework,
unified standards, unified institutions that you can go to.
So this fragmented global carbon markets
are an obstacle in itself for
un tapping the potential of the L disease.
And,
you know,
we know that the disease have less capacity to deal with this complexity than
other
countries. And so
they are, you know, hit twice
for LD CS to so for LD CS To unlock their opportunities in these markets, they face
pricing and access challenges
that hinder
their ability to fully engage.
A crucial factor for L disease
is establishing a viable carbon price
and the viable carbon price. That the
study and the research from an
A
is proposing is at least $100 per tonne,
but the actual price is $10 per tonne,
so if we continue
with this price per tonne for this,
uh, carbon market,
we think that
97% of the mitigation potential
of
the L DC is contributing
to mitigate climate change will remain untapped until 2050.
So that's too late.
If we are at the same time asking for cop 29
to have high ambition or for cop 30 to have high ambition.
Uh,
currently, as you can, uh,
extract from my former statement,
LDCs are utilising only 2% of their potential.
So
huge way to go.
Huge opportunity.
But with the current conditions,
it won't be
taking
a A
the opportunity won't come.
So
what is another point that we stress in the in the
report?
Since 2020
voluntary markets
have become the primary source of new carbon credits for L disease.
Focusing mainly on nature based solution. 52%
comes from nature based solutions,
renewable energy projects
that present a great potential.
We
cannot rely only on voluntary markets.
So we need more than voluntary markets,
uh, for this potential to be harvest
and at the same time
as said before
the value of carbon credits generated by LD CS in 2023 was only 403 million,
which is less than 1% of, for example, bilateral development aid.
This is like a drop in the ocean.
And the other problem that we have is market concentration.
The significant concern.
Uh
uh uh, of geographic concentration in the carbon mar in the, uh,
carbon credit market,
only six L DC from the 45 only six CDC
really
represent an important part of what goes to the L DC,
um
Bangladesh,
Cambodia,
Democratic Republic of Congo,
Malawi,
Uganda and Zambia.
So very good for these countries because they have done,
they have been able to attract
the and benefit from the, uh, carbon markets. Although, as I said, still
with a huge untapped potential because of the limitations that they also face.
But the other
38 countries, uh,
39 countries, uh,
are basically not benefiting. These six countries account
for over 70% of all voluntary market credits
and 80% of credits.
And under the CD M,
this concentration limits opportunities for broader participation
and benefits across
the least developed countries.
So the way forward,
according to our recommendations,
uh, is
starting from the point that we know that many of the LD CS
lack the infrastructure, the technology and the institutional capacity
needed for a meaningful participation in carbon markets.
So we need to strengthen domestic capacity
and and that emphasise that strong domestic frameworks are essential.
LD CS need laws, regulatory capacity and monitoring sys
sorry systems
to fully leverage carbon markets
while ensuring
benefits rich local communities.
But we also need to expand international partnerships.
Effective global support for LD CS
in CA carbon markets require
expanded partnerships, regional institutions
and supportive climate frameworks.
The African Continental Free
Area is a clear example
of an opportunity for regional institutions to really support LD CS in Africa,
uh, to have a better frameworks to
on top
the
opportunities coming from carbon markets.
So collaborative approaches can lower transaction costs
and increase the least developed countries positioning within carbon markets.
In particular,
we need a stronger
push for harmonisation
across different standards and regulations.
LD CS
cannot
and should not be forced to navigate a spaghetti ball of climate regulations.
Now
we have to also prioritise capacity building.
Building local expertise and infrastructure is critical.
Capacity building enables LD CS
to integrate carbon market participation
into
their broader economic goals. Distinguishing carbon finance,
uh, also is important. You know, we we need
to be able
to avoid,
the temptation of greenwashing
of projects on or investors,
uh, we know that the greenwashing have been really one of the factors
that have weakened
the participation of investors
in,
uh, funds for sustainable development and for climate finance.
Uh, as you I don't know if you remember, but last day,
uh, when we
launch the world investment report,
uh, in 2023 was established that in 2023
there was a decrease of 60% of the new
funds coming into the climate.
Uh, the climate funds and the sustainable funds
a 60% decrease from investors and from new money, you know, to fund,
uh, this this, uh, the to for resources for these funds.
And this was mainly according to our research because of greenwashing.
So we need to have a clarity
in how the projects in these countries are going to take place.
So they are not used for
greenwashing projects
that don't have really a value added to the objective,
and, uh, that will then repeat a pose a reputational risk for this for this, uh,
countries possibilities to participate in the
carbon markets.
So our main message carbon markets are not a silver bullet
but can support sustainable growth for LD CS
carbon markets alone won't solve the problem of development in this, uh, LD CS.
But with the right reforms, they can provide supplementary financial support
and a stepping stone to broader
sustainable development.
We underscore
that carbon markets can contribute to global
climate action by unlocking the sustainable growth potential
in the world
most vulnerable economies.
With cop 29 in Baku starting next week,
where we will also host an event on this topic,
this report
adds momentum
to global climate action discussions.
Creating inclusive, effective carbon markets
is essential to achieve both
development and climate goals and may be part
of a new
architecture for climate finance.
Underpinned by the new collective quantifiable goal to be agreed in this cop 29.
This is an opportunity
that leaders at cop
cannot afford to overlook.
Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Secretary General, for presenting providing the key takeaways of this report,
which of course, kicks off our approach to cop 29 and what UN trade and development
will be addressing
in
Baku starting next week. I now get the floor to our colleague Roger
for some additional, more technical
insights. He has promised to keep them
at layman's but interested people and followers levels.
So we all understand what he really wants to convey.
And then we open the floor for questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Marcelo.
Good morning, everyone.
So I'd like just to provide some further details to what the Secretary general
has just exposed, which are the main findings and recommendations of the report
and particularly this crucial question which the report seeks to answer,
which is how to bridge these gaps.
And there are several gaps.
Gaps between economic growth and climate action, gaps between the
cash with which international financial markets are awash
and the huge financing gaps of these developed countries.
And as we have seen from
the Secretary General's Exposition,
there are huge gaps
and quite often these carbon markets.
They are presented to developing countries in general, but particularly to
as a silver bullet as a solution
to all their financial problems. But we have seen that this is not the case
But how can we bridge
the gap between the potential which is
out there and the actual conditions under which
economies evolve?
So
as has already been
mentioned,
there are different actions which can and should be taken at different levels,
both at the national level of the
themselves.
Secondly,
at
the regional level and third at the level of the international community,
particularly at the multilateral level, since we are talking about
et cetera, et cetera.
So in terms, starting with the let's say,
the priority actions and not necessarily actions but attitudes
of the least developed countries,
one particularly important point is that
should have realistic expectations vis a vis carbon markets.
We have seen carbon markets are not a silver bullet.
They are not the solution to their financial
and their needs for financing for development,
but
can contribute there too.
And therefore it's important for these countries to have
realistic expectations not to place all of their eggs on
these markets as if they were going to solve
the bulk of their needs for financing for development.
This is not going to happen. It's going to be a contribution
second
and
by the same token,
it is very important for these countries to carefully weigh
the trade offs which are involved in carbon market participation
because there is, of course,
the positive side of raising finance and possibly contributing to climate action
both for their own sake in terms of their own policies,
their own contribution to combating climate change
and thereby indirectly giving a contribution to
the global action against climate change.
Of course, keeping in mind the proportions and the small size of these economies vis
a vis the world economy,
and why is it so important to keep in mind these trade offs?
Because, yes,
they are the positive sides, particularly financing,
providing improving the environmental conditions of these countries,
possibly community development, local development.
Possibly these projects may involve some sort of
transfer of green technology towards these countries,
which is something that these countries need dramatic.
But at the same time,
there are pitfalls involved in participating in these countries.
And why is this the case?
Well, first of all, typically these projects carbon projects,
they are very long term, so they can go for 5, 1015, 20 years, or even beyond that,
So it's very important for the countries engaging in
these projects to keep this time dimension in mind.
Why? Because these are contracts are signed nowadays.
But the engagements, the obligations the countries
assume by signing these contracts by agreeing to these projects,
they go over the long term.
So it's very important to be mindful of the long term
of the long term engagements into which these
countries go by participating in these countries.
There is another
aspect, particularly in the case of nature based solutions,
particularly in the case of forestry is that quite often
the land which is involved in these projects is enormous.
In some cases, it's as big as some countries like Belgium, etc.
Whatever the country is making commitments to is making
commitments is engaging big parts of its territory over
which it will have restrictions on what national policies
will be able to do or not to do
so. These are some of
some of the examples of the trade offs that these countries need to take
into account.
The third point, as the secretary general mentioned,
is the need to develop domestic institutions, laws, regulations, institutions
like a designated national authority, which is
foreseen by the Paris agreement, et cetera, et cetera,
which is very important and poses challenges
because there is an element of learning.
There is
an element of capacity building.
There is an element of cost as well cost, institutional costs, financial costs,
the need to build human resources, etc.
Etc.
And let's not forget that within while building these institutions,
it is not just a matter of
complying with what international obligations say coming from
CC or coming from the Paris agreement or otherwise.
But it is very important that the national goals
of domestic policies are inbuilt into national legislation.
For instance,
rules for benefit sharing.
These should be inbuilt in national legislation,
which is a way of ensuring that whatever
projects will be undertaken in those countries,
foresee or oblige if you want some form of fair benefit sharing,
particularly with local communities with sub regional areas, etc.
And
last but not least,
it's also very important when building
these institutions when engaging in negotiations.
When authorising these carbon projects
that
the broader developmental objectives and instruments and priorities
of each country are taken into account.
This means that, yes,
these projects are a way of raising finance of
complying with the international obligations of these countries.
But at the same time, it's very important that these projects
are built and foreseen as part of
overall development policy making in these countries.
So I give you an example, which is renewable energy, which the
general mentioned several times.
Why is renewable energy potentially at least a gain gain a win win situation?
First of all,
because these countries have an enormous deficit
in terms of energy generation transmission,
et cetera.
Let's not forget that in two thirds of the 40 fives,
less than two thirds of the population have access to electricity.
And when I am talking about less than two thirds,
it could be as little as 10 to 15% of the population who have access for electricity,
which means
the demand for electricity for energy in general is enormous.
And there there is a potential for projects
for carbon projects to provide part of the finance
in order to close these gaps, as
was mentioned at the beginning
and here it's important not to think just about the well being of the population,
which is certainly very important and giving them access to electricity.
But the role,
energy supply and electricity can play in
the structural transformation of the economy.
Let's not forget that the structural transformation is
an essential condition for these countries to develop
and to reach their development goals and to modernise the economies,
to industrialise, to develop modern services, etc.
Etc.
Secondly,
there is the regional dimension which again
was mentioned by the secretary General.
And what is the rationale here?
The rationale is that all of these institutions, supervisory bodies,
repository of projects, etc.
Etc.
They are very costly. They are very
resource intensive for individual countries, particularly for small economies,
as is the case of most
LDCs, so thereby pooling regional resources
provides an important opportunity for many of these countries to put in
common resources in order to make the best use of these markets.
And finally, I'd like just to make a couple of comments about action
that the international community can take in order to support the
LDCs. Make best use of the potential is there
in the case of carbon markets.
First of all,
there is the issue of building capacities, as was mentioned by the
SG,
and here I would say that it is very important to
have a broad understanding of what it means to build capacities.
It's not just an issue of building capacities of what rules you have to set up,
what institutions, what bodies, what measurement mechanisms.
Of course, this is very important.
But what is perhaps even more challenging is how to
together these technicalities of carbon markets, together with the
broader developmental objectives of these developed countries
of structural transformation of their economies,
et cetera,
how to put carbon markets at the service of broader development goals.
How to create synergies between these two processes.
Another point is not to conflate carbon finance with climate finance
because there is a certain tendency, particularly in policy discourse,
to shift responsibilities from climate finance to carbon finance.
And it is important to say that the treaties, the Paris
agreement,
the
it's very clear that these are different things.
Carbon finance is the finance that countries can raise by
implementing these projects and by engaging in carbon markets,
whereas
climate finance is the finance which has been pledged
particularly by developed countries in favour of developing countries,
and they started with the $100 billion a year.
But now we are transitioning into a new regime, as the Secretary general mentioned,
was the new quantified goal which is being negotiated now.
And finally I would like to finish by recalling the importance
of taking into account the principle
of common but differentiated responsibilities,
which is both the UN
and the Paris Agreement.
And this needs to be implemented
when all of the rules which are still in the making,
for setting up these and regulating these markets
at the multilateral level.
These are negotiations on article 6.26 0.4 of the Paris Agreement
that special rules and special conditions are put
in place in favour of these developed countries.
So I thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you. Thank you very much to both. We open the floor for questions. First, from,
journalists here at the
Palais,
please. If you identify yourself and to whom you direct your question. Thank you.
Hi. Nina Larson. A FP. Uh, thank you for doing this briefing. Um,
I had a few questions for you.
I was wondering, uh, Secretary, Secretary General, if you could, um,
you mentioned a lot of gaps and challenges.
Um, including, you know,
the fact that these are voluntary markets and also about the greenwashing.
I mean, there was a lot of stuff.
I'm just wondering, how big do you see these challenges? How optimistic are you that
there will be some form of agreement on on moving forward on this?
And, um, I was also hoping that you could, uh, say something about the the failure,
um, at ca Cali to cross the finish line.
Um, And how you see that in terms of these kinds of, uh,
international negotiations and especially ahead of the cop
29 if if you have any thoughts around,
uh, around that
colleague. Sorry. The biodiversity conference
can collect questions for the sake of efficiency as well.
We group them and then
yes, I know, I know. But it was just a OK, fine.
No worries. It's fine. It doesn't. It doesn't impact the reply. Thank you.
I will give the floor also to Ralph, but, um
uh,
I think that greenwashing is a problem,
and it's a problem that cannot be solved only by the funds.
Yes, it will need transparency,
uh,
in the standards and appropriate institutions for
the follow up for the certification.
Uh, and and, uh
um, evidence in terms of what the projects are doing
and the,
uh we we as an that can help. We have the standard also the ER.
And I think that is R Will can take part of this.
They will have to be more agreements in
terms of transparency and accountability of these funds.
And it will be very important to regain the trust of the investment community.
Because if you don't do that
so
it will also be not only that investors
will have less credibility will go
somewhere else,
but that somewhere else may have nothing to do with the
objective of that we have set for ourselves for climate change.
And so,
uh, diverting those resources from this objective is a problem in itself.
So
I think that greenwashing has to be taken seriously.
Yes.
The other problem in terms of the gaps is how do we develop,
uh, the capacities of these, uh, countries to really take the right decisions. And,
uh uh, I think that, uh uh in the report says something very important.
This has to be part
of your strategy. As a country
is not a silver bullet.
It can help, but at the same time establishes obligations for you in the long run.
And I think that the Ralph may give a very good example on
the some of these projects are as big as Belgium.
So you could be alienating,
you know, part of a a very important part of your territorial from
a coherent national strategy.
So we need to help these countries to look at the big picture, Yes,
not only to develop the laws and the the standards and regulations, but also
to have a coherent strategy.
And my third point is this does not replace
the
role of aid for these countries and financial,
you know, access
for development.
It it will never be enough, because also, they will have to comply with their own N DC,
and so to comply with their own ND CS.
You know that you cannot
sell all the credits that your potential establishes because you
will have also to participate in the ND CS in
the international community. Yes.
So,
um
uh, and in the financial side, what we know
is that they are not receiving investments at
the scale that these countries need.
Uh, so
private sector alone won't make the trick.
The trick? Yes. We will need the multilateral development banks
really to come in here with guarantees with risk reduc uh,
reduction.
Um uh,
measures with their own financial capacity to support the L DC for a sustainable,
coherent sustain, Uh, a
development strategy for the future.
And this was also very clear in the TDR,
uh, that we just launched. Yes, in terms of how do we take finance
to scale
and I? I have to say that this,
uh, permanent dichotomy between private and public financing,
uh, doesn't make sense, because what we need is really,
you know,
both of them coming together
in synergy.
Uh, one example that I give very often
is what the World Investment Report said in his uh 2023
edition
that when you combine
private investment
with
multilateral development, bank investment
and government investment,
the cost of capital goes down 40%.
So when you consider all this
apart,
you don't get this scale
or
you get
an investment that is too expensive
or a financing that is too expensive for this country. So
you know being smart about this
means you will need international financial
organisations,
institutions to come to these countries and leverage the potential
it won't happen only with private
investment.
They will have to be able to, uh, address or as, uh,
address private investment to these countries.
Uh, red reducing, uh, the cost of capital and the risks,
Uh, how optimistic I am.
That's a difficult question.
Um
uh,
in a way, we are in
a
difficult moment. Yes. And, uh uh,
we cannot be naive in the sense that we have a a
very polarised world.
Uh,
and, uh,
in a way, you know,
Paris 2015
was a moment of hope.
We had the Paris agreement. We had the SDGS
the SDG agenda in the 20. The agenda 2030
but
and there was this idea that we could go
for a win win
process.
Uh,
we are again
in the tradeoffs narrative,
and
mainly because,
you know, you can have a win win if you have the financing for it.
But if you don't have the financing for it,
you just see the trade offs.
Yes.
And, uh, that's why this scope is so important.
Because we need to go for a new finance.
Uh uh, Target
and,
uh, and
if we don't agree on it,
the
divide
will grow
and the trust on any process will grow.
I really believe the impact of the future.
It was,
uh,
Hope Moment. Also, because there was consensus on very difficult issues
that two years ago were impossible to be discussed in the international,
uh, framework, Yes.
Uh,
and examples of it is the international financial architecture reform,
uh, in its governance and also the debt architecture. Uh
uh uh
uh,
reform. So the processes to get a reform in the international financial
Uh
uh, architecture
were a very important part of, uh, of the, uh, part of the future
and that I think that can unleash
part of the financing that the developing countries need for us,
for sustainable growth and to be a positive.
And participants in the objective of the Paris agreement.
Uh, but,
uh,
so
eight.
You know, I see the challenges, but I also see that agreement is possible,
even in difficult.
Uh uh, Areas like the Security Council reform in the UN. Yes.
So I will expect,
or I will wish
to see in in cop 29.
a better.
Yeah, an attitude that will allow for some consensus around
the quantifiable, uh, financial goal.
Uh, obviously, it will be very far away from the 100
billion initially stated. Yes, the numbers are much higher.
And the the big question will be not only about the number,
but how the financing
will be composed.
Yes. What will come from from the donor community?
What will come from multilateral development banks?
What will come from an effort of domestic resource mobilisation?
What will come from the investment community? That will be really
the most important discussion
in in, uh,
in
Baku
and in cop 29.
Uh, and that together with the the N DC revision for 20 for the cop 30
I think that is a good combination to regain momentum
in
the opportunities also for the south, for the developing countries,
for the LD CS to tap into the opportunities.
Uh, so
I am
cautiously optimistic.
Thank you. Thank you,
Secretary General. That may be
you
want
to
say
maybe when we wrap up, so we progress.
So being cautiously optimistic in terms of peeping, also for time,
I don't know if we have more here in the room
we see more? No, no expanding. So we go on to those connected
online. We see. I see two hands at the moment.
Maya
plans
from the UN brief, please. Thank you.
Yes, Thank you for
taking my question.
Um, my question is related to what Mr Trager
mentioned earlier about if you could expand a little
more on the question of how much we are confusing
carbon.
Uh uh, finance, Uh, meaning, uh, mitigating, uh,
the harms of carbon dioxide in the environment
and climate change, which seems a a larger umbrella.
OK, thank you.
So what is? I
mean,
both of these types of finance have to
do with the issue of mitigating climate change,
but the difference between them is the origin,
the mechanics and how they are supposed to operate.
When we are talking about carbon finance,
we are talking about the finance which is raised by
the sale of carbon credits by setting up projects,
etc.
Which are approved and are then sold in the markets, etc.
And there you have one challenge,
which is that the market value of these projects is one thing.
The amount of this value which stays in the country
is something else because typically these projects, particularly in the case of
are developed by foreign operators,
so it's not sure how much or what is the share of this value which stays in the country.
So this is one issue,
but this is the logic of common finance,
whereas the climate finance is the one which was pledged
back
in Paris in 2015
by developed countries through different ways of
financing climate action in developing countries,
and back then it was
a
value was put to it which was $100 billion a year.
But right now it is much higher than this. So one thing is
what the country gets by setting up these projects
and getting some proceeds out of the sale of these
projects.
The other thing is how much the international community,
particularly donor countries,
have pledged to finance for climate action in developing countries.
This is quite independent of
independent of setting up carbon projects and therefore
the two of them should not be confused.
Thank you,
thank you. Thank you very much.
If the secretary General excuses herself,
she had to leave for another prescheduled
engagement. So apologies from her side
We don't know whether there are any follow up
questions either here from the room or online.
They are not so again. Thank you for attending.
The report has been distributed. It is online. We have various
assets as well. This is again. I reiterate what we said at the
beginning. The first step as we approach.
Oh, I have somebody online, but I don't see it. Oh,
Maya
again, I think.
Yes. Maya.
Sorry.
I saw this was the old hand, but it's still It's a new old and new. Thank you.
I had a question for the secretary General. What
ti?
Uh, but perhaps Mr Tr
can, uh,
um um expand on that too. The concept of greenwashing we talk so much like the
EG. No,
that banks institutions, Uh uh, companies, uh, em
on this
where they
of monitor. So what you see is the possibility of creating some sort of framework.
Where are there? Frameworks?
Uh, that would help these companies into account.
Um, and and how does that impact also,
when they go to these developed countries and pretend that
they are doing good and they are just greenwashing?
If you could comment on that aspect of greenwashing mitigation.
Yes, thank you.
So this was an issue which was already mentioned in a previous question
and which is a major problem for the functioning of carbon markets,
because carbon markets were launched around the world in
their present form around the beginning of the century
and
there was lots of enthusiasm for them.
But later much reporting emerged
on with accusations of greenwashing. And what would be the case
that claims are made that there has been there have been
abatement activities, that there have been the
has been mitigation through different projects, etc. Etc.
But which do not amount to reality?
Or, conversely,
that the same mitigation amount is counted twice
by a private company by the country,
etc.
Etc.
And the problem of this is that these repeated accusations of greenwashing
have taken away the credibility of carbon markets,
which largely explain both the fall in carbon prices in international markets
but also the falling interests of international investors,
particularly in the case of voluntary markets in these markets. Why
these investors? They are motivated essentially by the will to polish the green
credentials to implement their
policies, environmental, social and governance policies etc.
Etc.
But these policies only have credibility if the projects
over which they are buying credits, they are credible,
whether they
is real mitigation, whether this is properly monitored,
whether this is properly measured,
whether there is proper accounting and accountability for all of this system.
And all markets rely on some sort of shared values, understanding and credibility.
And the fact that
there have been so many accusations of greenwashing
has hampered the functioning of these markets.
And that's why you have a number of initiatives in order to prevent greenwashing
in order to have serious standards of accountability,
of measurement of the mitigation impact, etc.
Etc.
Of ensuring
that the same mitigation activity is accounted for properly,
that it is not accounted twice.
And this is very important for the whole of the working of carbon
markets because unless there is credibility in the working of these markets,
there will be no demand for carbon credits
and even the limited possibilities and potential which is there for
not be at their reach will not be available to them.
So hence the importance of this international movement, and particularly
at the multilateral level and principles which are being
developed in order to enhance the credibility of these markets
and to minimise, if not eliminate greenwashing.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you, Maya. Apologies again.
If there no further questions, then. As I said, this is the first of several steps.
As we approach
Baku,
we will be sharing more up to date information on all our engagements.
Whilst in
Azerbaijan
the follow up questions also to the Secretary general again had to leave before.
Please send them to us and we will get back to you during the week. Thank you very much.