Welcome to the fourth edition of Temperature Check, Portland’s COP newsletter.
COP29 may feel like ancient history by now – especially with COP16 on desertification getting underway in Saudi Arabia today, and a week of talks on reducing the use of plastics having failed to reach a successful outcome in Korea – but the dust is still settling on the two-week jamboree in Baku, Azerbaijan, and we’re here to tell you how badly it’s gone down.
A deal at the death
“It’s a betrayal.” This was how the negotiating bloc for the least developed countries responded to the final agreement at COP29. Their criticism is reflective of the widespread dissatisfaction with what was achieved in Baku.
From the outset, the summit was on rocky ground. Yet, despite a turbulent gathering, an agreement was eventually reached. That deal, thrashed out in the early hours of Sunday morning (Nov. 24), established a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) that will see developed nations raise $300bn a year for developing countries by 2035, replacing the previous target of $100bn per year agreed at COP21 in Paris.
Reaching the agreement was not plain sailing. It took 35 hours of overtime to reach an agreement on the text, with negotiations on the brink of collapse only hours earlier. An offer of $250bn per year from richer countries was met with dismay by the LDCs and the alliance of small island states (AOSIS), resulting in a walkout. Sierra Leone’s climate minister Jiwoh Abdulai described the offer as “a suicide pact for the rest of the world.”
With negotiations at a standstill, there were grim reminders of the Brexit deadlock with activists arguing that “no deal is better than a bad deal.” A $300bn offer would, however, prove enough to bring them back to the table and flesh out the final text at around 3am local time.
The sum fell well short of the $1.3tn that developing nations had been pushing for. Instead, the final agreement called for the outstanding $1tn to be mobilised by “all actors” from “public and private sources”. Although the specifics of what will contribute towards this figure remain vague.
Good COP, bad COP?
Some have blamed the COP presidency’s poor leadership for not reaching a more ambitious climate financing target. Canada’s environment minister, Steven Guilbeault, called the Azeris out for their “lack of ambition” and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock accused them of ignoring the most vulnerable nations.
However, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev has pushed back. He claims the decision to not publish a financing figure in the draft text was forced upon them by “western countries” and that the greatest resistance to an increase on a previously floated $250bn per year deal came from the European Union.
Blame game aside, the question everyone is asking is was COP29 a successful COP?
The $300bn is the obvious place to start. The figure is not what was demanded and is far from what is needed, yet the climate crisis has reached a point where every dollar counts. A tripling of the previous goal is, as UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres pointed out, “a base from which to build”.
But it’s important not to ignore the backdrop COP29 took place against. Multilateralism has arguably never been under more pressure. Conflict, humanitarian disasters, and the climate emergency itself have brought the multilateral system to its knees. The looming Trump 2.0 presidency has only added to concerns.
In that context, no deal would have been an unmitigated disaster. Irrespective of whether Trump decides to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, the COP29 agreement is “an insurance policy for humanity,” as UNFCCC executive secretary Simon Stiell put it. A deal on any description was critical and, for now at least, breathes some life back into multilateralism.
There were other signs of progress too. An agreement was reached on carbon markets, establishing rules for an international carbon trading system overseen by the UNFCCC. A more formalised carbon market will mean many developing countries can monetise their green assets. Africa alone could generate a potential $80bn in revenue.
Another major success was China’s engagement. As the world’s biggest emitter and second largest economy, China’s agreement to having its (voluntary) contributions counted in the overall fund for climate-vulnerable countries is undoubtedly progress.
Despite this, concerns will remain over the lack of progress elsewhere. On loss and damage, developing nations had hoped that it would be covered by the NCQC, essentially compelling developed nations to contribute. This was ultimately rejected. So too was a push to establish a loss and damage gap report to help hold nations accountable.
The other sticking point many had hoped would be addressed in Baku was a reaffirmed commitment to the COP28 deal under the global stocktake which called on all countries to contribute to “transitioning away from fossil fuels”. Efforts to embed this commitment into COP29’s final text were continually blocked by Saudi Arabia. This included directly editing the official negotiating text – a usually non-editable document – to weaken stance on the transition away from fossil fuels.
The summit failed to meet the expectations of the most vulnerable to climate change. But calling it a failure feels premature. Was it a good COP or a bad COP? Probably neither. Its achievements will be defined by what happens next. The $100bn target was missed until 2022; the world can’t afford the same to happen with the $300bn.
What to expect in 2025?
Next year, Marina Silva, the Brazilian minister of the environment and climate change, has promised the “COP of COPs” in Belem. While it is clear that 2025 will be another critical year for the climate agenda, the Brazilian COP presidency will inherit a number of unresolved challenges.
While COP29 largely maintained the status quo on loss and damage the question around its governance will still need to be answered in 2025. Carrying forward the global stocktake is also not dead. Instead, it has been kicked into the long grass – or kicked into the Amazon rainforest in this case – as it will now fall on COP30 to take this forward.
On a positive note, securing a final deal in Baku – albeit a criticised one – has also unlocked a mandate to continue discussions on climate financing at COP30.
With five years left to achieve the 2030 goals, COP30 presents an opportunity to deliver landmark climate commitments in 2025 – however Brazil cannot repeat the mistakes made in Baku. COP30 will need to be defined by action.
What’s next?
Next up, we’ll be shifting our attention to COP16 of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, including insights from our Portlanders on the ground.
Sign up for Temperature Check here to join us for the final instalment.
In the headlines
- The Guardian, Backroom deals and betrayal: how COP29’s late $300bn deal left nobody happy, 26 November
- Euronews, COP29 ends with $300bn a year deal but is it enough? 5 key takeaways from Baku, 25 November
- CarbonBrief, COP29: Key outcomes for food, forests, land and nature at the UN climate talks in Baku, 27 November
- Financial Times, Making sense of the COP outcome, 25 November
- Forbes, Developing Nations and Nonprofits Reject ‘Disaster’ COP29 Climate Deal, 24 November
- Arab News, COP16: Largest-ever UN meeting on desertification starts in Riyadh, 02 December
- CGTN, COP16 to combat desertification opens in Saudi Arabia, 02 December
