Credit: B&W Studio: Unsplash
The round up of the final day (weekend):
One day after COP29 was meant to finish, the expectation is for a new and (hopefully) final text on climate finance to be released. The text will stipulate how much financial support developed countries will provide to developing nations, with funds going towards helping those nations transition to low-carbon economies and adapt to changing weather. The draft put forward yesterday set the total sum at $250 billion a year by 2035 – a figure immediately dismissed by both developing nations and NGOs. Information has been circulated concerning food outlets remaining open late tonight and tomorrow morning, hinting that COP29 may not conclude until Sunday.
Late last night, the G77 and China rejected the draft text on climate finance. This rejection was supported by 355 civil society organisations, who released a letter in solidarity with the rejection. The letter urged delegates to ‘stand up for the people of the Global South’, and specified that no deal would be better than a bad deal. Panama’s climate envoy Juan Carlos Monterrey asked this morning how it was possible to go ‘from the request of $1.3 trillion to $300 billion?’ – although $300 billion has apparently been suggested as the new sum, Monterrey referred to it as ‘crumbs’.
Over 50 NGOs, including Youth and Environment Europe, submitted a letter this morning to EU Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra. The letter stated that the signatories ‘are deeply outraged in your destructive role in creating an absolutely unacceptable draft negotiating text’, and further specifies that ‘we will hold you responsible both here and when we go home’. Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg similarly declared via social media site X that ‘the current draft is a complete disaster’ and ‘the people in power are yet again about to agree to a death sentence’ to those most vulnerable to the climate crisis.
Before any progress on climate finance, there has been movement on various other draft texts. Texts on carbon markets, for example, are ‘99% agreed’. These documents, relevant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, concern a carbon markets system which would enable nations to offset emissions and pollution by buying carbon credits from elsewhere.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has accused rich fossil fuel emitters of ripping off climate-vulnerable nations in ‘a geopolitical power play’. She further stated that these nations have the backing of the Azerbaijani presidency, and said that ‘We as a European Union will not accept a deal that comes at the expense of those who suffer most from the effects of climate crisis’.
Some negotiators, from the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and Least Developed Countries (LDC), walked out of the meeting room in fury at the proposed climate finance deal. The new rough draft reportedly contained a new core figure of $300 billion a year. In contrast, the G77 and China want a bare minimum of $500 billion a year. Negotiators from dissatisfied countries told reporters that although their ‘needs are known’, they ‘are being ignored’. Although negotiators have walked out of the finance meeting, and not COP29 altogether, the prospect of no deal is looking increasingly likely. Mohamed Adow of Power Shift Africa spoke to the press and stated that ‘the rich world has refused to honour their obligations and they are effectively working to ensure they can shift their burden to the developing countries’. He further bemoaned that the text ‘put the onus on all actors who cannot be defined and can’t be held accountable’, rather than acknowledging historic responsibility. AOSIS chair Cedric Schuster and the LDC chair both later confirmed that negotiators had ‘temporarily walked out’ but would continue to negotiate – as long as they were included in the discussion.
For a decision to be made, a quorum is necessary at COP29 – rules say that two-thirds of parties must be present. However, most delegates have travel booked back to their respective countries – if too many go home, the quorum could be lost and no decisions will be made. In this event, it is likely that a final deal would be pushed to climate talks in Bonn next summer, halfway between COP29 and COP30.
The plenary finally started just after 8pm – COP29 President, Mukhtar Babayev, specified that ‘time is not on our side’ in an opening statement, and asked negotiators ‘to now step your engagement with one another’.
Marina Silva, the Brazilian Minister of Environment and Climate Change, said that COP29 had been a ‘difficult’ experience, and promised that COP30 in Brazil would be the ‘COP of COPs’, with the objective being ‘to do what is needed to keep 1.5C in reach’.
The plenary was adjourned again, and despite no agreement reached on the key climate finance deal, an agreement was reached on carbon markets (Articles 6.2 and 6.2 of the Paris Agreement). This will pave the way for country-to-country carbon trading and the creation of a regulated global carbon trading market. However, details and technical rules still need to be resolved, which will happen in 2025.
There are concerns and criticisms which have been levelled at carbon trading, which some fearing that it undermines the need to cut global carbon emissions. There have also been concerns that it lacks adequate protection for human rights, and that carbon trading could take the place of genuine climate finance commitments. Greenpeace’s Political Advisor for Biodiversity and Climate Policy, Jannes Stoppel, for example, has termed it a ‘slap in the face’ for those suffering from extreme weather events.
Island nations returned to the negotiating table, with Biman Prasad, leader of Fiji’s delegation stating to the media that the final figure was shown to island nations and was something Fiji could accept. Monterrey, however, posted on X that the new draft was negotiated ‘behind the backs of many countries’ and that the ‘quantified goal is still very low’.
The new draft of the climate finance text, released in the early hours of Sunday morning, increases the $250 billion a year by 2035 figure to $300 billion. The wording of numerous aspects of the text was changed – developed countries will be ‘taking the lead’ while others will have voluntary contributions recognised. It further states that this goals needs to come with ‘meaningful and ambitious mitigation and adaptation action and transparency in implementation’. Another key point is that nations will be able to count ‘outflows’ and ‘finance’ mobilised by multilateral development banks towards the total goal. A vague ‘Baku to Belem roadmap’ is also mentioned with regards to the wider 1.3 trillion USD finance goal.
The latest draft of the UAE dialogue does not explicitly mention a transition away from fossil fuels, but instead refers to ‘paragraph 28’ where the previous commitment was made. The exploitation of gas is boosted as the text ‘reaffirms’ how ‘transition fuels’ can help in the energy transition. Moreover, there is no mention of targets such as no new coal improvements and no solid process to track the implementation of the few targets set.
With the resumption of the plenary, the text on gender and climate change was passed to much acclamation. This text focuses on provisions to advance efforts on achieving gender equality and empowering women.
The finance deal was gavelled, to lots of applause. No nation appears particularly happy with the final text, but it appears relief that at least some agreement was reached overtook the delegates in the room.
India accused the Azerbaijani presidency of gavelling through the deal before it listened to objections. India’s representative said that ‘we had informed the president that we wanted to make a statement prior to any decision on the adoption’, and that the deal had been ‘stage-managed’. COP29 President said that India’s objection would be noted, but that the agreement on the deal still stands.
On a post on LinkedIn, UN Climate Chief Simon Stiell called the COP29 summit ‘a difficult journey’, but that the ‘UN Paris Agreement is delivering’. He called the finance goal ‘an insurance policy for humanity’, and specified that ‘like any insurance policy it only works if the premiums are paid in full, and on time’.
Statements from some nations in the plenary were extremely negative. Nigeria’s representative called the $300 billion a year figure a ‘joke’, and like India objected to the gavelling through of the text. He further said that ‘We have a right as countries to decide if we accept this or not. I’m saying we do not accept this’. Bolivia’s negotiator further stated that the deal ‘enshrines climate injustice’ and ‘consolidates an unfair system’, with developing countries left minimal resources by rich nations to meet their climate goals.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres wrapped up the summit in his statement, declaring that ‘an Agreement at COP29 was absolutely essential to keep the 1.5 degree limit alive. And countries have delivered’. He did, however, specify that he ‘had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance and mitigation – to meet the great challenge we face’.
Although this agreement may well provide ‘a base on which to build’, it remains to be seen whether the targets will be met, and the unambitious $300 billion a year may not cover the increasing costs climate change necessitates. Only time will tell whether COP29 was successful or an abject failure, but proactive change and decisions will certainly be needed in the fight against climate change.
Comments