Council on Energy, Environment and Water Integrated | International | Independent
COP29 represents more than just a meeting – it is an opportunity to confront the global climate crisis, emphasise the urgency of action, and establish accountability for climate in-actions. Yet, this COP appears overshadowed by the U.S. election outcomes, with the heads of state from the world’s largest emitters — responsible for over 70 per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—noticeably absent. Adding to these setbacks Argentina, a prominent G20 economy, also withdrew its delegates after just three days. In fact, at the end of a whole week of negotiations, not much has been achieved.
Despite being hailed as the ‘Finance COP’ with much riding on for the future of climate finance, consensus remains elusive on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). On the one hand, developed countries continue to signal the achievement of the USD 100 billion goal and, by and large, are advocating for a "pragmatic" multi-layered NCQG approach. This includes a mix of core finance and investment goals, and with a broadened contributor base beyond just developed countries. However, developing countries view this as undermining the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), and they emphasise that the NCQG should be new and additional and cover both adaptation, and loss and damage. In this regard, The G77 + China has proposed a provision and mobilisation goal of USD 1.3 trillion, while the Arab group demands USD 1.1 trillion, including a USD 441 billion exclusive grant component. In fact, the decision on NCQG remains unresolved, with the 25-page draft negotiation text lacking consensus on key aspects such as the quantum and who should pay.
Likewise, while some agreement on Article 6 appears to have been arrived at, critics argue the process has been rushed. The debate on Loss and Damage and Adaptation also has only seen incremental progress and is still far from discussing their funding arrangements. In fact, consequent to inconclusive deliberations, discussions on adaptation, loss and damage, and technology have all been deferred to the Subsidiary Bodies’ next session in June 2025. Concomitantly, the contributions to the Adaptation Fund and Loss and Damage have been appalling. While the Adaptation Fund has only accumulated USD 61 million in new pledges at this COP, far from the USD 300 million goal; the growth in contribution to the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FrLD) does not even match the pace of inflation, with the total commitments now standing at about USD 720 million, while the estimated need is USD 400 billion. Highlighting this deficit further, research by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) shows major developed countries have still not deposited 100 per cent of the amount they have pledged for climate finance. Worryingly in fact, it is found that mitigation continues to dominate funding, receiving three times the allocation of adaptation.
While negotiations, decisions, and its implementation drag on, climate change is approaching a point of no return. The 1.5°C threshold has already seen multiple short-term breaches, and Arctic Siberia has reported temperature increases of 2-3°C or more. In fact, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) recently reported that without enhanced ambition in new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), global temperatures could rise by 2.6-3.1°C by the end of this century.
The role of developed countries in leading to this state is monumental, given their historical responsibility; however, their efforts to remediate it are frugal, to say the least. In the past, we have seen major developed economies blatantly defying climate agreements. The US never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and later categorically withdrew under the Bush administration. Likewise, Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol but officially withdrew from it in 2011 and did not ratify the Doha Amendment. Other major economies like Japan and Russia also did not accept the second commitment period imposed by the Doha Amendment.
Even with their current commitments, CEEW research shows that developed countries take much longer to transition to net zero - illustratively, India, South Africa and China are expected to take less than 30 years on average compared to the 70 years or more that the EU and UK take.
Given that the COP survives as a function of international cooperation, defiance by major economies leads to lost trust in negotiations and, by extension, affects the expected outcomes of the forum. This leads to exorbitant delays in effectively reaching a consensus. It took six years to move from the Copenhagen Accord to the Paris Agreement and another decade to COP29 for progress on the finance goals of the Paris Agreement. Thus, for climate negotiations to succeed, decision-making must become more efficient. In fact, it could take a hybrid form, where contentious technical deliberations could happen throughout the year and arrive at a consensus that then informs the political decisions at the annual COP sessions.
As the clock ticks, the COP29 Presidency must bridge the deep divisions among countries and reinforce trust in the negotiation process. Negotiators should not push vital climate decisions into the future. Without meaningful progress at Baku, the global climate goals will continue to drift further out of reach.
Sumit Prasad is a Programme Lead and Mohana Bharathi Manimaran is a Research Analyst at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water, in the International Cooperation team. Send your questions to [email protected]
Add new comment