EL PAÍS openly proposes the América Futura column for its daily and global informative contribution on sustainable development. If you want to support our journalism, subscribe Here.
One of the reasons why the climate change summit (COP30) which concludes this week is crucial is because by 2025 countries will have to present their updated climate commitments. Since 2015, when the Paris Agreement was signed, it was established that these plans (known as NDCs) had to be updated every five years, making them more ambitious. Colombia officially presented them to the United Nations in September, but in an unusual format: they called it a “declarative” version. Although the 93-page document calculates the greenhouse gas emissions it intends to limit for 2030 and 2035, it skips the part about how it will do so. The technical details, they assure, will be defined this year.
According to an analysis by Tracking climate action (CAT), a scientific project that acts as a heart monitor to verify whether what countries propose is in line with the Paris Agreement – making every effort to ensure that the increase in the average temperature of the planet is not more than 1.5° – Colombia’s commitments are “insufficient”. The country’s challenge, says Gustavo de Vivero, researcher at New Climate Institute and author of the evaluation, “it is not necessarily its lack of ambition, but its implementation gap.”
What do the new climate commitments say?
In terms of reducing emissions, Colombia’s new NDC emphasizes two things. The first is that it confirms that, by 2030, it will emit a maximum of 169 megatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2eq), a figure it inherits from the document presented five years ago, in 2020, under the government of Ivan Duque. The second thing is that by 2035 it will try to generate, at most, between 155 and 161 MtCOeq.
Are the commitments enough?
De Vivero clarifies that the CAT analysis only takes into account the 2030 target: he expects all countries to reach the 2035 target to evaluate the latter. They give this objective two ratings: “almost sufficient” and “insufficient”. In the first case, he explains, what they do is evaluate whether what Colombia proposes is consistent with the emissions it generates. “Historically, not all countries have the same per capita burden,” he comments. What they find, in other words, is that the country, although it only accounts for about 0.6% of global emissions, is still slightly behind in terms of its contribution to ensuring that the planet’s temperature does not rise above 1.5°C.
In the second case, classified as “insufficient”, the exercise instead explores whether what Colombia pursues by 2030 is consistent with the full capacity the country has to reduce its emissions. In this case, they say, it falls short and what it proposes is in line with a 3°C rise in global temperature.
Are the objectives and policies consistent?
The most critical point in Colombia is the gap between what you want and what you do. Compared to other countries, says de Vivero, not only are the goals ambitious, but so are their speeches. “From the beginning, Gustavo Petro’s government has been clear that climate change is essential in its agenda,” he comments. “He demonstrates this in the development plan, in the roadmap for the energy transition and every time he gives a speech on international platforms.” However, it lacks harmony with what has been achieved and persists.
Gaps in implementation, according to CAT analysis, are partly explained by local conditions. “There is a problem of fiscal and economic dependence on fossil fuels in the country.” Added to this is a change of government that limits the implementation and monitoring of policies: three Environment Ministers have passed throughout the Petro government, including Irene Vélez, who went to COP30, also as responsible. “Government reshuffles, political instability and the simultaneous implementation of numerous reforms have slowed the implementation of policies at the national level,” the report said.
The other part of the gap arises from an international context in which the financial architecture continues to punish governments that want to abandon fossil fuels. When the idea of suspending licenses for new oil and gas exploration was proposed, the researcher recalls, “the financial system immediately interpreted it as a fiscal risk, lowering the credit rating”. It is a sanction that not only discourages Colombia, but also other countries from pursuing their climate goals.
“It is still important for the country to show its climate ambitions, especially in a political moment in which many prefer to look the other way,” concludes de Vivero. But until the modus operandi of global finance changes, the obstacles will continue to take a path that is almost impossible to overcome.
