EESC info

Young climate and human rights activist and co-founder of Youth for Climate Belgium Adélaïde Charlier lists all that is wrong with the COP29 climate deal that has just been brokered in the Azerbaijan capital of Baku. Seen by many as a symbol of broken trust and climate inequality, COP29 has left vulnerable nations and civil society bitterly disappointed.

The recent COP29 climate conference in Baku has left the world divided, with vulnerable nations and civil society expressing deep frustration over what is seen as a betrayal of trust. While a deal was reached—pledging USD 300 billion annually to help developing countries adapt to climate change by 2035—it falls drastically short of the urgent needs of those on the front lines of the climate crisis.

'No deal is better than a bad deal'

Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, set the tone 24 hours before the final deal was passed: 'No deal is better than a bad deal.' His statement echoed the mounting tension between affected countries, civil society, and wealthier nations. By Sunday, the conference presented a sobering reality with only one financial target: the pledge of ‘USD 300 billion per year by 2035’. This goal is ridiculous as it is far below what the vulnerable nations had collectively called for (USD 1.3 trillion to cover their needs in terms of adaptation, mitigation and addressing loss and damage).

This agreement is tied to the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which is meant to finance the climate transition in developing countries. While it is three times higher than the USD 100 billion target set in 2009, which was only met two years late in 2022, it is still far from sufficient. The 2009 USD 100 billion commitment would, accounting for inflation, amount to USD 258 billion by 2035, representing a real increase of only USD 42 billion in actual effort. The call from vulnerable nations has been clear: 'Trillions, not billions'.

The structure of the proposed financial objective is just as disappointing as the amount itself. It lacks any specific commitment to public funding mechanisms, such as grants or subsidies, which are critically needed by countries in the Global South.

Additionally, there are no sub-targets to adequately fund mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage. The lack of a clear focus on adaptation, combined with a disproportionate emphasis on mitigation—primarily financed by multilateral development banks and the private sector—demonstrates an ongoing failure to learn from 2009, where adaptation was significantly underfunded, compounded by the absence of accountability and dedicated financing for loss and damage.

Furthermore, while loss and damage are mentioned, they receive only a vague and superficial reference, rather than being integrated meaningfully into the agreement. The framework also leaves the door wide open for heavy reliance on private financing, including public-private partnerships, de-risked private investments supported by public funds, and fully private investments, which are actively encouraged.

Ignoring historical responsibilities

Beyond the insufficient funding, the deal has exposed deep cracks in climate diplomacy. Wealthier nations have ignored differentiated responsibility—shifting part of the financial burden to vulnerable countries already bearing the brunt of the climate impacts. Nations like India, Cuba, Bolivia, and Nigeria voiced their anger, accusing the rich countries of failing to pay for their historical greenhouse gas emissions.

This disregard has left trust in tatters, with tensions reaching levels unprecedented in the history of the COP negotiations. The current pledge of USD 300 billion pales in comparison to the USD 1 trillion estimated by UN experts as the minimum investment required for developing countries (excluding China) by 2035.

A bad deal under pressure

The world's poorest and most vulnerable nations, including the 45 least developed countries (LDCs) and 40 small island states, ultimately accepted the deal under immense political pressure. The fear of losing any agreement, particularly with the possibility of a Trump presidency threatening future climate progress, forced their hand. For many, it was a bitter compromise: accepting insufficient funding to secure immediate aid.

The price of delay

This 'bad deal' is not just a blow to diplomatic relations; it will have devastating consequences for millions of lives. Vulnerable nations have already been pushed to their limits by extreme weather, rising sea levels, and resource scarcity. Governments in wealthier nations must recognise that investing in climate action now will cost far less than waiting for the increase in the catastrophic bill Nature is making us pay.

The outcome of COP29 leaves a stark reminder: the climate crisis demands bold, urgent action, and justice for those most affected. Without transformative commitments, we are deepening year by year the divides between the global North and South—undermining the very essence of global climate cooperation.

As we look toward COP30, it’s clear that the fight for climate justice is far from over.

Adélaïde Charlier is a 23-year old European climate justice activist, best known as a co-founder of Youth for Climate Belgium and now as a founder of the Bridge organisation (bridging youth and climate politics). She is also a 2024 Forbes 30under30 nominee.

‘We rural women do not want to be viewed with pity or compassion; we want to be recognised and valued as allies in achieving sustainable development. We need opportunities and quality basic services to be able to stay in our territories and continue feeding the world’, says Luz Haro Guanga, Ecuaduarian peasant farmer and Executive Secretary of the Network of Rural Women of Latin America and the Caribbean (RedLAC), who recently spoke at the EESC debate on Women and the triple planetary crisis. In her interview with EESC Info, Ms Haro Guanga talks about the impact of climate change in Latin America and why – despite the setbacks of COP16 – there is no room or time for pessimism in the fight for a more sustainable and healthier planet.

Your organisation, RedLAC, participated in COP16. Are you disappointed with the results of the conference, given that no consensus was reached on funding for the protection of nature and biodiversity? Was anything achieved at COP16?

As an Ecuadorian woman from the countryside, I have been fighting for the rights of my rural sisters in Ecuador since the 1980s. Among the lessons that these nearly 40 years have taught me, is that social processes require enormous efforts, give few immediate rewards and, most of all, require persistence, consistence and insistence. A consensus on financing for the protection of nature and biodiversity would have been great, but I’m sure that the voices of thousands of urban and rural men and women, brought to COP16 as an avalanche of grains of sand, won hearts and minds that previously had no desire to support this urgent climate action.

We didn’t end up achieving our goal, but right now we need to continue insisting before the authorities of every city, community and country, so they take note and, with personal, technical and political will, make the best decisions to avoid human deaths from hunger in the future as a result of not acting today.

How does climate change affect indigenous and rural women in Latin America?

I would like to highlight some facts from a document compiled by the Inter-American Commission of Women (CIM) of the Organisation of American States (OAS), on the basis of dialogues with 70 female leaders from 16 countries. The dialogue process started in September 2024. The document was presented at COP16 and put forth the opinions of rural women.

The conclusion was that climate change is a reality in all countries, including in the Americas, and is causing serious impacts. However, four climate events were singled out.

Prolonged droughts: Some countries reported months with very little rainfall, with countries further south reporting years-long droughts.

The rise in temperatures is well above normal levels: These high temperatures, together with dry soils, are contributing to numerous fires (some spontaneous and others deliberately lit), but all of which are exacerbated by dry conditions, affecting life and biodiverse systems. For example, at the time of the Brazil meeting, it was reported that there were 300 active fire outbreaks in the state of Piauí.

Windstorms: It was mentioned that rain is intense and comes in very short bursts, often accompanied by strong windstorms. Participants from Central America, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and coastal Colombia spoke of an increase in the intensity and frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms that impact their areas.

Changes in rainfall patterns: ‘It rains when least expected’ is an expression that cropped up in all meetings, and in the south and in Andean areas they spoke of unexpected frost, hail and snowfalls. In general, a decrease in yearly rainfall was noted, but it was said that when it does rain, the rains are torrential, causing floods and natural disasters, resulting in loss of life, infrastructure, roads and crops, and affecting living conditions, mainly in rural areas. One participant summed it up by saying ‘sometimes the rainfall is terrifying’.

On the other hand, unsustainable practices are being implemented, depleting natural resources. The most worrying and also most commonly mentioned issues were logging or deforestation of forests and mangroves; deliberately lit forest fires; inadequate handling of water resources; pollution; the promotion of intensive, expansive, water-intensive and polluting activities; and the excessive use of agrochemicals, herbicides and pesticides.

One aspect that stood out was the inaction of some local and national governments that were not developing regulatory frameworks to curb destructive activities and promote sustainable productive strategies. Some countries have regulations, but because of corruption or personal political interests, the authorities do not implement them.

International leaders are therefore called on to put more pressure on states to comply with the biodiversity and climate change treaties they have signed.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the direction that the fight for climate and environmental protection is going? What do you think should be done?

If we do not dream big, we will not achieve great things. While climate change affects us and its effects are progressing rapidly, we cannot stop fighting for decision-makers to pay attention to those fundamental aspects that require priority action, not only in terms of financing, but also in terms of coordination, cooperation, and less egoism and partisan political zeal.

I am optimistic that if we continue insisting, raising our voices, and sustaining the long-term social processes through perseverance – if we make strategic alliances, in the Americas and across the world, we can influence public policies and ensure that those who take up positions of power or decision-making roles do so with the conviction that there is an urgent need to fight climate change and, at the same time, reduce actions that accelerate its harmful and destructive effects on our planet: fires, single-crop farming, indiscriminate use of insecticides and chemicals, the destruction of water basins, indiscriminate fishing, the destruction of water springs, sewage treatment, etc.

Pessimism will weaken our voices, eventually leading us to give up our work and our fight. There is no time to lose, nor space for pessimism in the fight for a more sustainable and healthier planet, despite negative occurrences. It’s a question of life or death for current and future generations!

The time to act was yesterday. But today is still a good day to start changing attitudes and make commitments for the good of all people.

Luz Haro Guanga is Ecuadorian peasant farmer and Executive Secretary of the Network of Rural Women of Latin America and the Carribean (RedLAC), as well as the president of the technical arm of RedLAC in Ecuador,  FUNMUJERURAL-e. RedLAC is a social organisation made up of more than 200 rural women's organisations from across Latin America and the Carribean. Founded in Argentina in 1990, its purpose is to promote the effective civic and political participation of rural women. Thanks to RedLAC’s long-standing efforts, the Organisation of American States (OAS) proclaimed the period between 2024-2034 as the 'Inter-American Decade for the Rights of All Women, Adolescents and Girls in Rural Areas of the Americas’.

In 2021, the Belgian association Grootouders voor het Klimaat (Grandparents for the Climate) won the EESC Civil Society Prize, which was focused on the theme of climate action, for their campaign entitled Our Savings for their Future. The campaign was aimed at encouraging some 2.4 million Belgian grandparents to redirect their savings – estimated at the time to amount to around EUR 910 billion in assets – to more sustainable projects. EESC info spoke with co-chair of Grootouders voor het Klimaat Hugo Van Dienderen about the current situation regarding climate and sustainable finance, and their expectations and plans for the future.

Three years on, are you seeing tangible results from your campaign? How would you generally assess the current situation regarding climate and sustainable finance in Belgium – has there been progress, and are people becoming more aware of the importance of this?

The EESC prize gave us important recognition and support. We have often referred to it in contacts with the government, other support organisations and our fellow citizens. It has helped us to make more contacts and develop our campaign further, in relation to both our fellow grandparents and the younger generations, with the development of presentations, workshops and a series of lectures on sustainable finance.

We realised that while this is still not a straightforward topic, major legislative efforts have been made in Europe (the taxonomy, the Green Deal, the CSRD, the CSDDD, etc.), which means that companies and sectors are now also taking more and more initiatives to which we can refer. This is a source of hope and very much needed, as the (inadequate) outcome of the COP in Baku has highlighted again unfortunately.

We learned from a recent study that our work in raising awareness is still very much needed. Only 5-15% of investors make use of their right to ask their financial institutions to take into account their sustainable preferences. We must therefore continue to work on this.

What do you expect from COP29? Are you participating in the conference, if not directly, then by supporting the 12-year-old boy Ferre and his grandparents? Do you think that climate finance is a crucial issue in a just transition?

At the time of writing, COP29 has just finished. From the outset, we gave our full support, in financial and communication terms, to the 12-year-old Ferre, who took the trip to Baku with his grandparents, who are members of Grootouders voor het Klimaat, to ensure that the voice of children continues to be heard. We would also like to thank all the fellow grandparents and authorities that made this possible.

COP29 had to be the climate finance COP because funding is indeed crucial for the just transition. Unfortunately, in Baku, this was insufficiently in evidence. Our message remains: the money is there, and we ask those who have it to step up to the mark and use it sustainably for the future of our grandchildren.

What are the latest projects of Grootouders voor het Klimaat that you would like to mention? Are there any new projects in the pipeline?

We continue to be hopeful about the future. For Grootouders voor het Klimaat, 2025 – ten years on from the Paris Agreement – will be the year in which we call on large numbers of our fellow grandparents, who are members of the big senior citizen organisations in Flanders. We are in the midst of preparations whereby several dozen ‘grandparents for the climate’ are being trained to engage in climate discussions with confidence, and to be ready to reach out and to listen.

We have developed a series of workshops, including one on sustainable saving and investing, which we offer free of charge to all local branches of the senior citizen organisations. We are already witnessing a lot of enthusiasm. At the end of November 2025, we will be hosting a major final event, which – we hope – will not be an end but rather the start of a growing commitment for the future.

Hugo Van Dienderen is co-founder and co-chair of ‘Grootouders voor het Klimaat’. Founded in 2019, ‘Grootouders voor het Klimaat’ is an independent movement of older people, mainly grandparents, who want to pass on a liveable world to future generations. It is a member of the European Grandparents for Climate Association. 

In the photo: Ferre with his ‘grandparents for the climate’ at COP29 in Baku. Ferre had the opportunity to express his concerns about the climate crisis to many key people.

Can we help save the world by investing sustainably? With the financial sector undergoing a remarkable transformation in the face of environmental and social challenges, Dr Brigitte Bernard-Rau of University of Hamburg looks at impact investing, the new powerful investment strategy. A fundamental shift in how we think about the role of capital and finance in society, the strategy challenges the traditional idea that investors have to choose between making money and making a difference.

By Brigitte Bernard-Rau

In a world facing unprecedented environmental and social challenges ranging from climate change and biodiversity loss to food security, inequality, well-being and healthcare, the financial sector is undergoing a remarkable transformation. Impact investing has emerged as a powerful approach that challenges the traditional idea that investors have to choose between making money and making a difference. But what exactly is impact investing, and how does it differ from other forms of sustainable finance?

Understanding impact investing

At its core, impact investing represents a fundamental shift in how we think about the role of capital and finance in society. As defined by the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN), impact investing is an investment strategy encompassing 'investments made with the intention to generate positive, measurable social and environmental impact alongside financial return'. However, this apparently simple definition belies how complex the transformative potential of impact investing is.

To fully grasp the distinctive role of impact investing in modern finance – with its materialistic approach – it is necessary to see where it sits on the broader spectrum of investment approaches. At one end of the spectrum we have traditional investing, where financial return and profit maximisation reign supreme and social or environmental considerations play no role in decision-making. As we move along this continuum we encounter increasingly sophisticated approaches to incorporating social and environmental performance factors, giving way to a variety of sustainable finance investment. Of this, impact investing is the ultimate investment strategy, championing positive and transformative change by combining financial return with social and environmental goals.

Investment approaches in a nutshell:

• traditional investing focuses solely on financial return, ignoring social and environmental factors. It has long been the cornerstone of capital markets;
• ESG integration incorporates ESG (environmental, social and governance) factors as risk indicators in investment decisions but does not see them as primary investment drivers;
• sustainable finance integrates ESG considerations into investment decision-making and sees sustainability as a value creator. It supports investment that addresses sustainability challenges and brings about positive social and environmental change. It also includes investing in the transition, financing both what is already environment-friendly today (green finance) and the shift to environment-friendly performance levels over time (transition finance);
• impact investing refers to a significant shift in financial markets, a ‘substantial reorientation towards impact’, and addresses the question Does investment in sustainability contribute to a better world?. Therefore, impact investing emerges as the most intentional approach, actively seeking to achieve both financial return and measurable positive social or environmental impact with equal commitment.

The two faces of impact investing: aligned vs generating

Within impact investing, a crucial distinction exists between impact-aligned and impact-generating investment. This differentiation helps investors understand not just where their money goes, but also how it contributes to positive change.

• Impact-aligned investment supports companies that have already shown that they use positive environmental or social practices and have proved their commitment to positive impact through their operations and outcomes.
• Impact-generating investment actively creates new solutions to social or environmental challenges, often focusing on transformation and systemic change.

This theoretical distinction is brought to life through real-world applications across different sectors.

Clean energy

In the clean energy transition, impact-aligned investing might involve purchasing shares in established renewable energy companies or electric vehicle manufacturers. These companies already contribute to environmental sustainability through their core business models. Impact-generating investment in this same sector might instead focus on funding early-stage battery technology startups or innovative community solar projects in underserved areas, creating entirely new solutions to energy challenges.

Sustainable agriculture

The sustainable agriculture sector offers another illustrative example. Impact-aligned investors might support established organic food producers or sustainable farming operations, while impact-generating investors would focus on developing new regenerative agriculture techniques or revolutionary urban farming solutions that could transform how we produce food.

Social impact

In the sphere of social impact, aligned investment often supports companies with strong diversity policies and fair labour practices. In contrast, generating investment might fund new, affordable housing developments or pioneer educational technology solutions for underserved communities, actively creating new pathways to social equity.

The investment process: from intention to impact

Success in impact investing requires a rigorous process which, with the intention of bringing about positive social and environmental change, begins with setting clear impact objectives. Investors have to define specific environmental or social outcomes that they seek to achieve, establish measurable targets, and often align these goals with established frameworks such as the United Nations Global Indicator for 17 Sustainable Development Goals and their 169 targets of the 2030 Agenda.

This intentionality distinguishes impact investing from other forms of sustainable finance. It requires impact-oriented investors to start a due dilligence process that thoroughly assesses both financial performance and the ability to generate and measure meaningful social or environmental outcomes.

Financial appraisal of an investment is a well-established practice, supported by standardised metrics and robust methodologies. However, non-financial appraisal, such as evaluating social and environmental impact, remains comparatively less developed and lacks universal frameworks. Investors therefore have to go beyond traditional financial analysis to assess how deep a company's commitment to impact is. This includes evaluating the management's commitment to achieving impact goals, their capacity to measure impact effectively and their ability to transparently disclose and report outcomes. The assessment process often involves examining specific impact metrics tailored to the goals of the investment, ensuring alignment with recognised frameworks such as IRIS+ or the Impact Management Project (IMP, 2024).

Additionally, to enhance the due diligence process, differentiating between ‘company impact’ and ‘investor impact’ is essential. Company impact is the direct social or environmental effects generated by a company's operations and products. In contrast, investor impact is the influence that investors have on a company's behavior and outcomes through their investment choices and engagement strategies. Understanding this difference is crucial in order to assess the overall impact of investment accurately and to develop effective impact measurement practices.

Challenges, complexities and considerations

Despite its promise, impact investing faces significant hurdles:

1. impact measurement: in the absence of standard measurement metrics, it is difficult to quantify or compare social and environmental outcomes. Transparency and rigorous tracking and reporting of impact metrics are crucial to provide consistency and accountability, ensuring that impact claims are backed by evidence;
2. attribution challenges: it is difficult to isolate the effects of specific investment amid broader systemic changes and attribute them to one's investment. Determining how much of the observed change can be directly attributed to a specific investment remains one of the most persistent challenges in impact investing. For example, improvements in SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-Being – might be the result of a combination of investment in healthcare facilities, education, and infrastructure, rather than a single targeted investment. Developing methodologies such as counterfactual analysis and control group comparison is necessary but can be resource-intensive and not always feasible, particularly for smaller projects or in developing markets;
3. impact washing: exaggerated or false claims by companies or funds about their social or environmental impact undermine trust in the sector. To maintain trust and integrity within the entire impact investing field, transparent reporting and verified impact claims are of the utmost importance (ITF). Clear standards for impact measurement and robust verification methods, along with third-party audits and independent certification, are vital for maintaining credibility.

Unlocking the transformative potential of impact investing

Impact investing stands at the forefront of a profound transformation in global finance, representing far more than just another investment strategy. It embodies fundamental reimagining of the role of finance in society. It challenges the traditional belief that financial return and positive social and environmental impact have to exist in separate spheres.

The evolution of impact investing has demonstrated that investors can simultaneously pursue profitable return while contributing to meaningful social and environmental change. By integrating purpose with profit, impact investing provides a compelling approach for a financial system that serves both people and planet.

Brigitte Bernard-Rau is a postdoctoral researcher and fellow in the School of Business, Economics and Social Sciences at the University of Hamburg. Her research focuses on ESG ratings and rating agencies, sustainable finance, socially responsible investing, impact investing and corporate social responsibility. She has recently published Sustainability Stories: The Power of Narratives to Understand Global Challenges (Springer Nature, 2024). The book features over 30 inspirational stories by different authors from across the world, who talk about various ways of engaging in the common good and making a difference in communities, professional practices and people's lives.

‘Climate Reporters’, Lithuania's brand-new climate news agency, aims to tackle fatigue in climate reporting and bring the topic of climate change back to the forefront of editorial agendas. In a shining example of citizen journalism, Climate Reporters combine communication and climate activism to educate people about climate change and give Mother Earth a voice during the environmental crisis.

By Rūta Trainytė

The climate news agency ‘Climate Reporters’ started up this year in Lithuania. It is an initiative run by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and an example of citizen journalism. The news agency aims to help journalists report on the various aspects of the environmental crisis. To that end, the agency’s team drafts texts and forwards them to editorial offices.

The agency’s work is carried out by a community of activists. The texts are written by journalists, public relations specialists, representatives of NGOs, activists and scientists – in short, people who care about what is happening and want social change. They also make up the board of ‘Climate Reporters’. The board ensures that the new initiative is trustworthy.

The ‘Climate Reporters’ are not new to the world of communication but have already gained considerable experience in public relations, in editing and in creating and maintaining web portals. Nor are we novices in climate issues. This is how the idea came about. We do what we do best and combine it with climate activism. We give Mother Earth a voice during this environmental crisis.

Of course, we are in contact with journalists. The dominant trend in editorial offices is to believe that climate news is not of interest to the public and does not generate clicks. They avoid publishing articles with headlines containing the terms ‘climate change’ or ‘climate crisis’. What does climate crisis denial mean? Is it a way to protect society from bad news and anxiety?

It might not be that bad. A vast amount of news floods editorial offices every day, which is physically difficult to process, even without producing climate-related news items. You also have to be familiar with the topic. This is where we come in. The next step that the ‘Climate Reporters’ are taking is to train journalists. We can see that journalists need to understand the issue to avoid spreading greenwashing.

Another idea is to teach certain groups about climate change in an attractive way. Above all, we want to reach out to young people, and we have realised that they respond well to humour. We are not sure yet what this will look like in the future, but we are already thinking in this direction.

The news agency has been operating for a good six months. We know from our own experience that we need patience. We persistently and purposefully knock on the doors of editorial offices with our news items. Our texts are already being published on major Lithuanian news portals, and we get invited onto radio shows.

To ensure that our editorial work is high-quality, it is very important that we receive considerable support from Lithuanian environmental organisations, that our organisations are members of international NGO networks, that our members participate in working groups at EU level and that they represent Lithuania in the EESC. This enables us to broaden our range of topics and stay up to date with current affairs.

Our connection with the EESC goes beyond the fact that one of the initiators of the project, Kęstutis Kupšys, is a member of the Committee. EESC members can share relevant experiences from their various countries to enrich the climate news published by ‘Climate Reporters’. In this regard, we recently spoke with EESC member from France Arnaud Schwartz on the fringes of the COP16 World Biodiversity Summit. The insights he shared with us directly from Cali led to a ‘Climate Reporters’ article. His thoughts were soon heard in the Lithuanian media. This model, whereby the expertise of EESC members is used to effectively communicate global news to local audiences, has proved its worth. We will therefore use it again in future.

Rūta Trainytė is the editor at the climate news agency ‘Climate Reporters’. The agency is part of the state-funded ŽALINK project. The project, which is run by the Consumer Alliance, the Development Cooperation Platform and the NGO ‘Circular Economy’, is funded by the Climate Change Programme of the Environmental Project Management Agency of the Republic of Lithuania’s Ministry of the Environment.