Claudine Felten, director of Natur an Emwëlt, has expressed her disappointment with the outcomes of the COP29 summit in Azerbaijan, particularly regarding funding for nature conservation in developing countries.
Environmental organisations had called for a significant increase in financial support, with scientists advocating for a quadrupling of current commitments to $1.3 trillion annually. However, the summit concluded with a pledge of $300 billion per year starting in 2035—far below the requested amount.
Felten described the agreement as inadequate: “Since 2009, we’ve been stagnating at $100 billion. While increasing this to $300 billion may sound impressive, it’s essentially just an adjustment for inflation. After 26 years, this is simply not enough.”
Felten criticised wealthier nations for prioritising other expenditures over environmental aid: “Some countries claim they lack the funds, but this reflects a failure to explore viable solutions. Finding the money should have been a key focus over the past years, but that didn’t happen,” she said.
She also expressed concern that many governments remain disconnected from the urgency of the climate crisis: “Climate change is already here. Last year, we saw a 1.5°C increase in global temperatures compared to pre-industrial levels. Every fraction of a degree we can prevent matters. Yet, catastrophic events—like the floods in Valencia and widespread forest fires—still fail to resonate deeply enough with decision-makers.”
Felten attributed part of the problem to short-term thinking among governments, where the focus remains on achievements within legislative periods rather than long-term environmental impacts.
Claudine Felten
Natur an Emwëlt on the reformed nature protection act
Felten also raised alarm about proposed changes to Luxembourg’s nature protection laws, which include a controversial "nature for a limited time" concept. This would allow construction sites to remain untouched for up to 15 years, effectively bypassing ecological penalties for erasing natural habitats.
Although Natur an Emwëlt welcomed the simplification of some procedures, Felten warned that the reforms could undermine biodiversity protection: “It’s not the conservation commissions deciding the fate of species and habitats anymore, it’s the government. The idea of temporary nature as a solution is destructive and risks wasting valuable time.”
Bird conservation act on trial?
Felten also criticised proposed amendments to the bird conservation act. The government claims urban tree planting could offset the loss of rural habitats, but Natur an Emwëlt disagrees.
She highlighted the case of the barn owl: “If its hunting habitat is destroyed without compensation, extinction becomes inevitable. As a country, we have an obligation to protect our species.”
Felten concluded by calling for improved dialogue between nature conservationists and the agricultural sector, which she described as nearly non-existent: “Cooperation is essential to address these challenges, yet it remains a significant blind spot in our current approach.”
