The latest round of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, the 29th session of the Conference of Parties (COP29), recently wrapped up in Baku, Azerbaijan. As usual, the complex process featured heated debates over key components of climate policy — mitigation, adaptation, and finance — as Parties continue working towards implementing the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Looking back, the results of COP29 around the big goals were largely disappointing – but there were still moments in Baku that provide a roadmap for how the climate agenda might be revived at COP30 next year.
This year’s “Finance COP” brought its own set of challenges for those following the process, which was intended to yield a new goal that would replace prior pledges by developed countries to provide $100 billion per year in climate finance by 2020.
Finance
The “finance gap” refers to the gap between existing climate finance flows and global mitigation and adaptation needs, particularly among developing countries. Estimates indicate that developing countries will need $5.1–6.8 trillion for up until 2030 or $455–584 billion per year to meet their mitigation goals. Regarding adaptation, finance needs are estimated at $215–387 billion annually for up until 2030.
During the last days of the U.N. talks, the COP presidency faced backlash for a $250 billion proposal, which advocates deemed woefully inadequate and called “an insult” and a “slap in the face” to those on the frontlines of the climate crisis. The conference extended until Saturday, Nov. 23, with serious concerns that the talks would not reach a quorum among Parties as ministers and delegates returned home after two intense weeks of negotiations.
During overtime, Parties finally came to an agreement as wealthy countries, including the EU, the United States, Australia, and Britain, pledged to at least triple the current goal to $300 billion per year in the draft decision text. Developing countries, including China, also agreed to language encouraging developing states to contribute on a voluntary basis to the overall goal.
The pledge is intended to build towards a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance of $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. The goal refers to the new climate finance target by 2025, which is supposed to replace the 2020 goal, although there is much disagreement regarding its definition. A significant portion of these resources, however, are not expected to come from developed countries but rather private sector investment and new taxes on carbon-intensive industries.
Developing countries pushed back during negotiations, voicing concern over whether pledges would be met and potentially further burden the Global South. There is uncertainty as to whether these pledges will come in the form of grants or loans, potentially exacerbating the debt crisis in recipient countries. Some developing countries like small-island States are already facing increasing costs due to the prevalence and impact of environmental disasters on their coastlines and populations.
The heated negotiations were yet another stark reminder of the historical tension between Global South and North countries, and the recurring question of who should bear responsibility for footing the bill for climate change. Developing nations are wary of unmet pledges, while developed countries remain either silent, hesitant, or outright against increasing climate finance pledges.
Mitigation
Another elephant in the final text is the lack of reference to last year’s goal to transition away from fossil fuels. The final text on mitigation does not reference transitioning away or phasing-out “fossil fuels,” which undermines the commitment made at COP28 in Dubai. The absence of this key language raises doubts whether countries will follow-up with real action to materialize this commitment. Days before the negotiations ended, many criticized what they perceived as lack of leadership by the Azerbaijani presidency. Time will tell whether this commitment can be advanced next year at COP30 in Brazil.
Climate Displacement
Weather-related disasters displaced some 6.6 million people globally by the end of last year, while 359 million weather-related displacements were recorded worldwide since 2008. For those displaced by climate change, addressing these inequities at international climate negotiations may seem futile. Yet, COP29 marked the first time climate mobility featured so prominently in the conversation. For years, advocates have pushed for much-needed discussions on climate displacement and migration at COP, only to be met with canned responses about the limitations of the UNFCCC process to deal with mobility conversations. However, given the centrality of COPs in bringing together 198 Parties to discuss the most critical climate issues, this year numerous experts and organizations coalesced around the Climate Mobility Pavillion. Additionally, at Baku, the U.N. Refugee Agency launched the “Refugees for Climate Action” network, with the hope of giving voice to displaced communities at climate negotiations by providing training and capacity building opportunities to eight members. According to the U.N., “The group will serve as a consultative body on climate issues, contribute to key global and local climate events, and work to ensure that the voices and perspectives of refugees and displaced people are integrated into UNHCR’s work and international climate discussions.”
Oases in the Desert
From accusations of bad faith negotiations to lethargic outcomes, led by a less than ambitious COP presidency, many followers of the COP29 negotiations are left wondering whether the COP process is even “fit for purpose.” Frankly, this is the reality of the long and arduous process of international law-making, though its slow pace is ill-fit for the fast-progressing environmental challenges of today. Yet, at COP29, nearly 200 countries with their own experiences and priorities still found agreement on certain climate matters. A COP is but a step in the direction of the goal, with each meeting building on the prior. COP29, too, had its moments:
- Adopting decisions concerning Articles 6.2 and 6.4, COP29 saw the effective operationalization of the market-based approaches to emissions trading under the Paris Agreement, although the decision had its critics. (see Draft Decisions FCCC/PA/CMA/2024/L.15 and FCCC/PA/CMA/2024/L.16).
- Assessing progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) through the adoption of additional guidance on assessment indicators for the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience (see Draft Decision FCCC/PA/CMA/2024/L.20).
- Establishing the Baku Adaptation Road Map and the Baku high-level dialogue on adaptation to support the GGA and its aims in Article 7 of the Paris Agreement (see Draft Decision FCCC/PA/CMA/2024/L.20).
- Securing a 10-year extension of the Enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender.
- Providing further guidance on the Sharm el-Sheikh Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme (see Draft Decision FCCC/PA/CMA/2024/L.23).
Admittedly, the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 degrees Celsius goal seems more often like a mirage –- an illusion where small island oases flourish, droughts and disasters diminish, and people are not forced to flee their homes in search of a habitable environment. Yet, the COP process has every opportunity to reach its ambition. Early collection of the committed $300 billion annual pledge would go a long way to bridge current tensions between developed states and climate-vulnerable countries and build lost trust and confidence. Should Parties also promptly deliver on a string of upcoming goals — including (1) submission of initial Biennial Transparency Reports by 2024’s end; (2) updating of national climate pledges, also known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by February 2025; and (3) conclusion of further NCQG negotiations by 2025’s end — the COP process may secure its own revival next year at COP30 in Belem, Brazil.