Stockholm (NordSIP) – COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan followed the pattern set by previous such events in producing a final joint statement at the last hour amidst rancour and controversy. Nevertheless, the conference was ultimately considered a qualified success in that it managed to produce some sort of concrete outcome despite delegate walkouts in the final week and the mounting expectation that the whole process might collapse altogether.
Billed as the ‘Finance COP’ the event’s objective was to put meat on the bones of the various funding mechanisms that have been set up to support developing nations’ climate transition, mitigation, and adaptation efforts. The nations of the so-called Global South have contributed the least to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions but stand to suffer the worst effects of the climate crisis. They have been asking for a much greater annual contribution from the national governments of high-emitting wealthy nations towards the overall objective of $1.3 billion as recommended by the United Nations Independent High Level Expert Group (IHLEG). However, the COP29 statement only contains a reference to a $300 billion annual funding target to be reached by 2035. Agreement on this revised amount was belatedly made after an initial offer of $250 billion was rejected.
Finance deal leaves many open questions
This headline New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) figure represents a tripling of the $100 billion target agreed in 2009, but this makes no allowance for past and future inflation. The $1.3 trillion goal for 2035 remains, but achieving this will depend heavily on national funding being supplemented by other private sector sources. Developing countries have been advocating for easily accessible financing either at zero or very low interest rates, but the COP29 statement wording leaves a much broader scope for a variety of mechanisms for the private sector portion of the climate financing.
Amar Bhattacharya, Vera Songwe, and Nicholas Stern, Co-Chairs of the IHLEG on Climate Finance published a joint statement on 24 November 2024, which expressed a somewhat reserved recognition of the COP29 statement on climate finance: “The commitment from developed countries of $300 billion per year by 2035 primarily from bilateral and multilateral sources of public finance is an important advance on current levels, but falls short significantly of the at least $390 billion a year by 2035 which our work shows would be required to deliver the goals of the Paris Agreement.”
The three experts further caution against any belief that the work on climate finance is anywhere near completion, urging all parties to continue finalising the details of the funding mechanisms in the run-up to next year’s COP30 in Brazil: “It is important that work starts immediately on the urgency of delivery, the quality of and access to finance, and reducing the cost of capital. Therefore, we welcome the emphasis in the agreement on the new goal on delivery, monitoring and transparency. It is crucial to work together to begin ramping up financial support from all sources immediately to assist developing countries in making stronger pledges for action in the national determined contributions that are due to be submitted ahead of the COP30 United Nations climate change summit in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025.”
Global South fury and frustration
Representatives of developing nations were almost unanimous in expressing their dissatisfaction with both the process and final outcome of COP29, with several groups such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) ultimately walking out of ongoing negotiations. Despite the final text having been approved well beyond the Friday deadline by COP29 president Mukhtar Babayev, many developing nations verbally rejected it, having apparently only allowed it to pass to protect the overall process. The Global South protests were led by India, whose negotiator Chandni Raina said: “Developed countries are taking the lead for a mobilisation goal of a mere sum of $300 billion, and that too to be only reached by 2035, that is almost 11 years later, and that too from a variety of sources. So it would have to be private, it would have to be multilateral, and there are large amounts of it that will be left for developing countries to mobilise themselves. We are disappointed with the outcome, which clearly brings out the unwillingness of developed countries to fulfil their responsibilities.”
International NGOs also expressed their frustration with the outcome, with many commenting that while seemingly large, the shorter-term investment would reap far greater long-term economic and climate-related benefits for developed nations. Fernanda Carvalho, WWF Global Climate and Energy Policy Lead, said: “In the year countries are deciding their new national climate plans, it is unacceptable for COP29 to not send a strong message on the need to cut emissions and phase out fossil fuels, backed up by adequate finance. Countries must not let this awful outcome detract from the urgent need to ramp up their emission reduction targets, press ahead with the energy transition and adapt to the consequences of rising temperatures. Unless developed countries go well beyond this finance target, making the $1.3 trillion Baku to Belém roadmap tangible, vulnerable communities will be increasingly exposed to devastating climate impacts and the window to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees will close.”
Saudi-led fossil industry obstruction
Although the Baku negotiations did yield some relatively positive outcomes such as the proposed new centralised carbon market, the overall process and structure of the climate negotiations has been the target of fierce criticism stemming from the detrimental involvement of fossil fuel producers. Commenting after the end of COP29 former US Vice President Al Gore said: “This experience in Baku illuminates deeper flaws in the COP process, including the outsized influence of fossil fuel interests that has hobbled this process since its inception. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has been particularly obstructive. Putting the future of humanity at severe risk in order to make more money is truly disgraceful behaviour. Reforming this process so that the polluters are not in effective control must be a priority.” As result of pressure from oil and gas producing nations there was no reiteration at COP29 of the common goal of transitionaing away from fossil fuels that had been expressed in the COP28 declaration.
