The 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) concluded amidst intense negotiations and disagreements, highlighting the growing divide between developed and developing nations on climate finance. Scheduled to end on November 22, the talks extended beyond the deadline as nearly 200 countries wrestled with critical issues. While the conference aimed to address rising carbon emissions and enhancing climate finance, its outcomes drew mixed reactions globally.
Why is COP29 significant for global climate action?
- COP29 marked a pivotal moment in global climate discussions, especially for finalizing the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance.
- The NCQG represents a vital commitment by developed nations to financially support developing countries in transitioning to low-carbon economies, adapting to climate impacts, and addressing climate-induced damages.
- Developing nations demanded at least $1 trillion annually from 2025 to 2035. However, the proposed $300 billion annually by 2035 was met with sharp criticism, particularly by nations most vulnerable to climate disasters.
What were the key demands of developing nations?
Developing countries, represented by groups like the Group of 77 (G77), Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), emphasized that climate finance responsibility should fall primarily on developed nations. They stressed the principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR), highlighting the disproportionate historical contributions of developed nations to greenhouse gas emissions.
- Financial support was deemed necessary not only to meet Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) but also to adapt to climate threats and recover from climate-induced damages.
- Despite these demands, global emissions reductions would amount to only 2% even if all countries fulfill their NDCs, whereas carbon emissions are expected to rise by 0.8% in 2024.
How did developed nations respond to the demands?
- Developed nations, led by the European Union and the United States, resisted higher financial commitments, citing geopolitical and economic constraints.
- They committed to $300 billion annually by 2035, far below the demands of developing nations, with funding to come from a mix of public, private, bilateral, multilateral, and alternative sources.
- Wealthy nations argued for broader participation, encouraging major emitters like China to contribute voluntarily to climate finance, which faced resistance from developing nations.
- Developing nations demanded grants or low-cost loans, while the focus on market-driven investments remained a major point of contention.
What were the key outcomes and controversies of COP29?
COP29 witnessed agreements and controversies that illustrated the complexities of global climate governance:
- Climate Finance Agreement: The commitment to triple climate finance to $300 billion annually by 2035 was heavily criticized, with India labeling it as an “abysmally poor” agreement. Nations like Sierra Leone and the Marshall Islands also expressed disappointment.
- Carbon Markets: Significant consensus was reached on carbon markets, allowing countries to trade carbon credits under the supervision of the United Nations, based on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
- Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM): Proposed by the EU, CBAM imposes taxes on imports that fail to meet EU emission norms, which developing nations criticized as a trade barrier disguised as climate policy.
What are the mechanisms and challenges of climate finance?
Climate finance involves public, private, and alternative funding sources to support mitigation and adaptation efforts. Operating entities like the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) channel resources to developing countries, with additional funds such as the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) targeting vulnerable regions.
However, the $100 billion annual goal, set in 2009 and reaffirmed by the Paris Agreement, remains unmet, leading to skepticism about new pledges from developed nations.
What does the future of climate finance look like?
- Developed nations committed to scaling up resources with a focus on private-sector mobilization, but this approach drew criticism for prioritizing profitability over equity.
- The proposed $1.3 trillion annual goal by 2035 relies heavily on private contributions, which may not align with the urgent need for grants and concessional financing in developing nations.
- The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) ensures transparency and coordination in climate finance delivery, publishing biennial assessments and organizing forums to track progress.
Was COP29 a success or a missed opportunity?
While the $300 billion pledge marks an increase from previous commitments, it falls significantly short of the $1 trillion demand from developing nations to address the scale of the climate crisis. Indian negotiator Chandni Raina criticized the agreement as “stage-managed”, highlighting the lack of inclusivity in decision-making processes.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres expressed disappointment with the limited ambition of the agreement, urging nations to use it as a foundation for future progress.
What is the path forward after COP29?
Developed nations must demonstrate greater political will and allocate resources that reflect the true scale of the climate crisis. Developing nations should leverage platforms to demand equitable finance and technology transfers.
Global climate efforts must prioritize transparency, accountability, and inclusivity to rebuild trust and ensure effective implementation of climate goals. As preparations for COP30 begin, lessons from COP29 will shape future negotiations, highlighting the need for more ambitious and cooperative climate action.