G20 Information Centre provided by the G20 Research Group
	@g20rg G20 Summits |  G20 Ministerials |  G20 Analysis |  Search |  About the G20 Research Group [English]  [Français]  [Deutsch]  [Italiano]  [Portuguesa]  [Japanese]  [Chinese]  [Korean]  [Indonesian]

Analysis

Can the G20 Succeed Where the UNFCCC Falls Short in Climate Finance?

Chen Zhong, G20 Research Group
November 16, 2024

To prevent the severe consequences of climate change, annual climate finance must increase at least fivefold as quickly as possible. In an average scenario, the required funding rises steadily from $8.1 trillion to $9 trillion by 2030 and then surges to over $10 trillion per year between 2031 and 2050. Despite this urgent need to upscale climate finance, negotiations on the new collective quantified goal for climate finance made little progress by the end of the first week of the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Baku. As attention now shifts to Rio de Janeiro for the G20 summit, a critical question arises: Can the G20 lead efforts to address the repeated disappointments witnessed at the UNFCCC COPs? The G20 presents both advantages and limitations as a platform for global climate finance governance.

On the positive side, the G20 has significant agenda-setting power in shaping the future of financial institutions involved in climate finance. Under Brazil's presidency, the G20 convened the Task Force on a Global Mobilization against Climate Change, bringing the sherpa and finance tracks together for the first time to discuss the climate agenda. The task force recommends enhanced cooperation among multilateral development banks (MDBs) and existing environmental and climate funds, such as the Global Environment Facility, to offer more effective assistance to emerging markets and least developed countries during their transitions to low-carbon and climate-resilient development.

However, a key limitation of the G20 in mobilizing climate finance is that its recommendations are voluntary. Additionally, the G20 does not include many of the countries most vulnerable to and affected by climate change. Think tank experts and scholars have expressed skepticism on the effectiveness of the G20, noting that the patterns of disagreement observed at the COPs are unlikely to disappear at the G20.

In summary, although the G20 cannot replace the UNFCCC as a more effective platform for addressing climate finance, it can play a complementary role by pushing governments and MDBs to reform their development agendas. What, then, is the way forward? Proposals for reforming the COP mechanism have emerged. For instance, during a side event on cooperation among India, Brazil and South Africa, one speaker suggested transforming the UNFCCC COP into a permanent UN commission. Such an entity could relieve the hosting burden from individual countries and offer developing countries, including small island developing states, opportunities to chair sessions and serve as penholders. Although initially time consuming, this reform could ultimately strengthen the inclusiveness and effectiveness of climate governance.

Chen Zhong is a PhD candidate in political science and a Junior Fellow at Massey College in the University of Toronto. Her dissertation examines the governance outputs of intergovernmental summits, such as the G20, in tackling climate change and advancing the energy transition.

[back to top]