For developing countries, this figure is a glaring reminder of inequities entrenched in international climate negotiations. India rejected the deal as it is insufficient and emblematic of the developed world’s failure to honour its historical responsibilities. With catastrophic climate impacts escalating, India’s resolute stance underscores the growing frustration of nations that are left to bear the brunt of a crisis they did not create, as the promises of equitable finance fall woefully short.
COP29 was meant to fulfil the long overdue commitment of establishing a new global climate finance goal to aid developing countries in fighting climate change. This process has been nine years in the making, ever since Article 9 of the Paris Agreement mandated developed countries to provide the necessary financial resources for mitigation and adaptation efforts in the ‘global south’ in 2015.
But Baku was a glaring failure of this commitment. The paltry sum of $300 bn a year—touted as a ‘tripling’ of the original $100 bn pledge—is nothing but an optical illusion. Adjusted for inflation, the real value of the $100 bn pledged in 2009 has eroded significantly, making this so-called ‘tripling’ grossly inadequate. The real scale of funds needed was $1.3 tn annually. In fact, Independent High-Level Expert Group (IHLEG)’s November 2023 report on climate finance puts the projected investment requirement for climate action at $2.3-2.5 tn a year in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), excluding China.
However, the final NCQG text only indicates scaling up to $1.3 tn by 2035 ‘from all public and private sources,’ and calls on ‘all actors’ to do so. Furthermore, developed countries are only required to ‘lead’ in the mobilisation of this target, effectively diluting their direct responsibility, and implying that others would be required to pitch in.
By failing to provide non-debt-creating finance, developed countries have essentially disregarded UNFCCC’s core principle of ‘equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’. This guiding principle acknowledges that while all nations share responsibility for addressing global environmental issues, their obligations vary based on their historical contributions to climate change and their capacities to deal with the crisis.Developed countries, which occupy more than 80% of the global carbon budget, have failed in upholding their responsibility and keeping to their commitments. Yet, they expect to play their part at the expense of sacrificing their SDGs.The decision to hold COP29 in a petrostate such as Azerbaijan was questionable at best, and a blatant undermining of the urgency to transition away from fossil fuels at worst. Azerbaijan was unable to foster trust and collaboration during negotiations and instead presided over an atmosphere of bad faith and high tensions coupled with procedural failures, further exacerbating deep divides between developed and developing nations.
With Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev declaring oil and gas to be a ‘gift from god’, it’s hardly surprising then that there were over 1,700 fossil fuel lobbyists present in Baku, a figure that eclipsed delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable countries combined.
To add to this, the aggressive defence of fossil fuels by prominent oilproducing states also resulted in a failure to explicitly mention last year’s pledge to transition away from such fuels, thereby further weaking global efforts to cut carbon emissions. This marks a regressive backward shift in the global fight against climate change, undermining the urgency and ambition needed to address the crisis.
For developing countries, effects of climate change are risking pushing an additional 100 mn people below the poverty line by 2030, and are resulting in economic losses of an estimated $520 bn, according to the World Bank. Incremental progress is no longer sufficient to tackle this escalating climate crisis.
The global climate governance framework needs reform that prioritises trust, equity, accountability, meaningful collaboration and implementation. A pressing call has come from prominent figures, including former UN secretary general Ban Kimoon, to transform COP gatherings into ‘smaller, more frequent, solution-driven meetings’. This necessarily needs to be the way forward, shifting from negotiations to action. The glaring inadequacies in financial commitments, the persistent influence of fossil fuel interests, and the erosion of trust between developed and developing nations highlight the need for a fundamental overhaul of the COP process.
Until then, one hopes COP30 in Belém, Brazil, will be radically different and not a mere continuation of failures. It needs to be a turning point that shifts the focus from procedural compromises and political upmanship to bold, decisive action that aligns with the scale of the challenge. Only then can the world hope to deliver on the promise of a just and sustainable future.
