Climate finance is the figurative “elephant in the room” for this year’s global climate negotiations. Unfortunately, there was little, if any, progress among Parties in this issue at the recently-concluded SB60 or the Bonn intersessionals.

There is no more notable indicator of this than negotiators being not even close to considering what the actual number (quantum) for the new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) should be. The momentum in just about any workstream came to an abrupt end once the subject of money came up, from longstanding issues like mitigation to emerging ones like just transition.  

While this is not surprising to many, given that climate finance has arguably been the most divisive topic in the history of the climate talks, it is nonetheless disappointing to see the urgency of scaling up solutions be undermined by this familiar obstacle.

Another workstream that encountered this roadblock in Bonn is Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE), or Article 6 of the UNFCCC that covers the cross-cutting elements of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation.

On pause

Addressing tools and support was the focus of this year’s intersessional work on ACE, following the action plan set in previous negotiations. Aligned with this, the draft decision text intended a call for submissions for Parties and other stakeholders, focusing on “challenges and gaps in the availability and accessibility of tools and support” for implementation, including financial and technical support.

However, some countries contested the language used in this text, such as “availability” and “gaps”, arguing that this is outside the mandate of this group. Because of this, the negotiations on this issue dating back to last year’s work is effectively on pause until COP29 in Azerbaijan.

The argument of considerations on gaps and availability being outside its mandate is weak at best, as any discussion on tools and support has to account for these aspects of implementation. It is symptomatic of Parties being non-committal to empowering the workstream that is intended to empower scaled up mitigation, adaptation, and other modes of climate action.

During the two-day ACE Dialogues, experts brought up numerous issues involving the necessary tools and support. While several sources for funding climate education, training, or any of the other six elements were brought up, including through the International Climate Initiative and the Youth4Climate initiative by Italy and UNDP, it became clear that there is a lack of awareness regarding these sources and insufficiency of available and accessible funds.

The outcomes of the talks in Bonn only strengthened the case for ACE-related needs to be included in the NCQG. Specifically, an eponymous funding mechanism would give different stakeholders an established source of monetary support for implementation of relevant knowledge, capacity, and partnerships-building projects, while also improving coordination among those working in this field. 

While ACE is listed as one of the numerous options to be considered as of the latest NCQG draft text, there has been little attention given to either its importance or that of generating sufficient support for its enforcement. Another issue brought up during the Dialogues is the challenge of mobilizing finance, as likely sources such as philanthropic organizations do not usually have projects related to any of the six elements as a priority for their funding.   

“ACE” up our sleeves

Accelerating either mitigation actions under any country’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) or adaptation solutions as part of their National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) cannot be achieved without a thriving ACE. As such, it necessitates adequate monetary support from developed countries, the private sector, and other funders through a dedicated mechanism in the form of grants.

An effective way to improve monitoring implementation is to enable Parties and other stakeholders is to track ACE-related budgets and expenditures, especially at the national level. For example, a solar power project supported by the Green Climate Fund could involve activities relevant to the six elements, such as training laborers as part of a just transition program and awareness-raising to nearby communities as to how the project would impact their daily living and livelihood opportunities. 

These activities, while relevant to this workstream, may not be properly monitored in terms of allotted budgets or expenses, resulting in missing data that would otherwise be helpful for having a more accurate estimate of how much funding is needed for it at both the national and global levels.

It is recommended that upcoming ACE Dialogues tackle a capacity-building workshop for National ACE Focal Points on tracking finance spent on education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information, and international cooperation. Expert individuals and organizations with expertise on monitoring and reporting finance on these elements should be invited to conduct such a session. 

Other aspects of innovation and collaboration, from artificial intelligence being used as a tool for budget-tagging to Focal Points working more closely with government agencies, the youth, and other non-government groups involved in this workstream, should also be addressed in future workshops and dialogues.

All of these would complement the courses of action such as countries more meaningfully integrate ACE into their respective NDCs and NAPs, the development of National ACE Strategies, or the designation of more capacitated Focal Points, especially in developing countries.

Relative to its potential impact on global climate action, ACE has arguably been the most overlooked workstream under the UNFCCC. COP29 provides an opportunity for Parties to change this narrative and give it much-needed funding support. 

John Leo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He has been representing Philippine civil society in UNFCCC COPs since 2017. While he is also a member of YOUNGO, his views here do not necessarily reflect those of the aforementioned youth constituency.