COP29 wins, losses and compromises

Ask anyone who attended the annual climate talks (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan, to sum it up, and you will hear a mosaic of adjectives — intense, disappointing, a joke or even an important step forward.

The Azerbaijani capital, nestled between the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus Mountains, became the stage for one of the most contentious negotiations in the 32-year history of the climate convention, as it grappled with deep divides and high stakes — questions that have haunted these talks for decades. Yet, global emissions remain off track, vulnerable nations are reeling from disasters, and trust in climate finance promises is eroding; all unfolding in what has become the warmest year on record.

The complexities of this year’s annual climate talks began long before they officially opened on November 10. The selection of Azerbaijan as the host nation had already sparked debate and drawn criticism. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg condemned the choice, calling Azerbaijan “an authoritarian petrostate” and describing the decision to hold COP29 there as “beyond absurd.”

Further, the US presidential election, held just a week before COP29, added a layer of uncertainty to the proceedings. With Donald Trump re-elected as president, fears surged that the US—one of the largest historical emitters and key climate financiers—might withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the global pact to combat climate change. The “Trump effect” was palpable, with some heads of state opting to skip the talks altogether, casting a shadow over the summit's momentum.

“The sound you hear is the ticking clock,” UN Secretary-General António Guterres reminded the world leaders at the summit, describing 2023 as a “master class in climate destruction.”

What unfolded over the course of more than 10 days in Baku can be encapsulated by the drama of the supposed final day, November 22, when the closing session stretched far beyond its scheduled time. Between the opening gavel and the eventual conclusion at 5.30 am on November 24, two days later, the conference resembled a tense tug-of-war—or perhaps a high-stakes football match. But the teams on this field were anything but equal and in the end, compromises, wins snatched in overtime, and unresolved tensions.

“The cost of inaction goes up by the day and is a lived reality for people all over the world as they are exposed to more frequent and more serious weather events and shocks. And this is where the finance gap comes into play. Climate policy initiative(CPI) found that global investment in combating and adapting to climate change averaged 1.3 trillion US dollars in 2022, woefully inadequate compared to annual needs of US dollars six -seven trillion through 2020 to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. And of that amount, less than three per cent went to Sub-Saharan Africa,” said Ali Mohammed, Kenya’s Special envoy for climate change and African Group of Negotiators (AGN) chairperson, at the conference’s opening plenary.

Peter Odhengo, head of Climate Finance and Green Economy Unit at the National Treasury and Economic Planning, told Climate Action that while Kenya’s exact climate financing needs are not fully calculated, “we estimate about a trillion Kenyan shillings — or approximately 100 billion US dollars annually — up to 2035.”

New Collective Quantified Goal 

Abbreviated as NCQG, the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance was the centrepiece of this year’s COP, resonating in every negotiation room.  The global community faced the challenge of defining a successor to the 100 billion US dollars annual commitment set in 2009; a target that has long fallen short of addressing the scale of the climate crisis.

Developing countries emphasised the need for 1.3 trillion US dollars annually to tackle the impacts of climate change. Numbers derived from the 2021 First Needs Determination Report of the Standing Committee on Finance shows that nearly six trillion US dollars is needed to help support developing countries implement climate action plans by 2030, without fully costing for adaptation. 

For days, developed countries sidestepped committing to a specific figure, fuelling frustration among negotiators from developing nations. When a number was finally proposed to save the talks from a potential collapse, India dismissed it as a “paltry sum,” while others went further, calling it outright “a joke.”

An agreement was reached for all actors in the global community to work collectively toward scaling up climate finance for developing countries. The target is to mobilise at least 1.3 trillion US dollars annually from both public and private sources by 2035. The presidencies of COP29 and COP30 will produce “Baku to Belem roadmap to US dollars 1.3T” to find ways to scale up climate financing. The mobilisation of the NCQG will be reviewed after five years, in 2030.

The short-term goal

Developed countries agreed to lead the mobilisation of at least 300 billion US dollars per year by 2035. Under the new goal, developing countries can voluntarily contribute to global climate finance.

On social media, debates swirled around a divisive question: “Why should developing countries get paid?” Some users argued that all nations should shoulder the cost of climate action equally, while others questioned the fairness of financial support flowing primarily to developing countries.

“For developing nations, this is not about charity; it is about justice because funds are owed to them because of a principle that recognises that while nations have a collective responsibility to climate action, there are differentiated responsibilities, which recognises that developed nations, as historical emitters, bear the largest share of accountability for the climate crisis in countries like Kenya,” explained Joab Okanda, a climate policy and energy expert.

Getting to 300 billion US dollars per year

There is no straight line on the trajectory of finance between now and 2035, experts say. “Under the previous 100 billion US dollars, we saw developed countries committing to provide 30 billion US dollars in short-term funding or fast-start finance for the period between 2010 and 2012. With the NCQG, what we know is that the finance must start on a floor of at least 100 billion US dollars and there is an agreement to triple the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) funds, but it did not set an intermediate goal,” offered Joe Thwaites, a senior advocate, International climate finance.

 While reacting to the 300 billion US dollars, Fadhel Kaboub, senior advisor for Climate Finance and Just Transitions at Power Shift Africa, argued that this amount is far less than what is being touted. “If you adjust the figures to inflation, we are looking at the Global North offering 30 per cent less than what they offered 15 years ago,” he said. 

On how much money will flow into which country is “a bridge that we will cross when we get there. For now, we just want to get the climate finance,” a negotiator from Kenya told Climate Action, highlighting the complexities involved in allocating and disbursing climate funds.

 Gender Work Programme

A particular photo has been causing quite some stir. It is a family photo taken at the World Leaders Summit during the first two days of the COP conference.

In the photo—there are only eight women out of 78 key world leaders, and when the heads of state took to the stage to talk about the impacts of climate change in their countries, only four of them referenced the impact of climate change on women.

On the flip side, preliminary figures show that 40 per cent of the parties’ delegation in Baku were women, making it the most gender-balanced COP yet in terms of confirmed registrations.

By the start of the second week, the gender agenda remained gridlocked. “This time the gender negotiations are more difficult than what we've experienced in the last COPs. It seems like most of the parties came with hard line stance. We are having it difficult to agree on even things that seem simple to us or things that are easily tradable. A case in point is just language, the issues around language on human rights, language on gender diversities, language on intersectionalities are really difficult,” Jackline Makokha, National Climate Change and gender focal Point told Climate Action in Baku.

Despite the push and pull, the Lima Work Programme on Gender, a framework that integrates gender considerations into global climate policies and action, was extended for an additional 10 years. Additionally, the negotiators agreed to develop a new Gender Action Plan to advance gender equality and women’s empowerment in climate action and decision-making.

Carbon Market Framework

On the first day of the Baku Summit, countries adopted the carbon market framework under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. 

The framework sets global standards for carbon credit trading, enabling countries and companies to offset emissions through projects that reduce greenhouse gases. While significant to some, critics identified many flaws in the framework.

“For the sake of the most vulnerable across Africa, the rules need to be strong to ensure rights are protected and credits traded under the Paris Agreement actually deliver what they say they will in terms of climate mitigation. 

Anything less than high quality will increase the land pressures on the continent,” said Dr Susan Chomba, director of vital landscapes for Africa at the World Resources Institute.

Loss and Damage Fund 

The Loss and Damage fund officially became operational, with pledges from various countries increasing the fund’s total from 674 million US dollars to 759 million US dollars. The fund was established during COP27 in Egypt and operations launched during last year’s COP in UAE. The fund is set to begin disbursing resources in 2025, focusing on projects that help nations recover from climate disasters and rebuild resiliently.

However, parties agreed that loss and damage would not be included under the NCQG on climate finance. This decision was made to maintain a clear separation between traditional climate finance mechanisms, such as mitigation and adaptation, and the unique challenges posed by loss and damage.

Further discussions on integrating loss and damage into broader finance frameworks were deferred to the Bonn Climate Conference in June.

Just Transition

The issue of just transition—ensuring that the shift to a low-carbon economy is equitable and inclusive—was a focal point of discussions. However, the conference concluded without a formal agreement on the just transition work programme.

Kenya's special climate envoy said: “The Just Transition text is unacceptable and lacks balance between domestic and international dimensions of just transitions. The Baku decision should effectively respond to the Dubai mandate and scope of just transitions.

[email protected]