COP29 exposes the collapse of global solidarity in climate action
Originally scheduled from 11 to 22 November, the conference was extended due to lengthy discussions, finally concluding on the morning of 24 November with a leaky bucket
The United Nations Climate Conference, COP29, has concluded in Azerbaijan's Baku, putting an end to all speculations.
Originally scheduled from 11 to 22 November, the conference was extended due to lengthy discussions, finally concluding on the morning of 24 November with a leaky bucket.
A Sack of Disappointments and A Pinch of Hope
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
Finance: This year, the expectations of climate-affected countries were at an all-time high, particularly regarding climate finance, tagged "Finance COP."
However, the much-anticipated establishment of a new climate finance goal — the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) — left these countries disappointed. The expectations included grants and highly concessional financing that would be new and additional to Official Development Assistance (ODA).
The G-77, a coalition of developing nations, demanded that developed countries provide $1.3 trillion annually for climate finance.
In the end, however, developed nations, the primary contributors to climate change, agreed to contribute just $300 billion, including a voluntary call to all actors to scale up financing to $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
The demand for the phrase "new and additional" has been completely overlooked. Furthermore, there is no clear decision regarding the allocation of grants or loans, whether from public or private funds.
This outcome reflects a blatant disregard for the countries and people suffering the most from climate change.
Mitigation: The disappointment over climate financing is further compounded by the lack of significant progress in mitigation measures aimed at saving the planet from the climate crisis.
COP29 failed to deliver meaningful advancements toward keeping global temperature rise below the critical 1.5°C threshold. Calls for phasing out fossil fuels were ignored, and the upcoming submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in February 2025 did not generate sufficient pressure on developed nations to reduce or phase out fossil fuel usage.
Progress has been made under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, particularly concerning carbon trading mechanisms and decisions related to carbon market management.
However, for countries like Bangladesh to benefit from these mechanisms, they will need to build greater institutional capacity.
Just Transition: In terms of Just Transition, COP29 ended without an agreement on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), a setback viewed by many stakeholders as a failure to protect workers, communities, and vulnerable populations directly affected by the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The absence of a concrete framework for a just transition underscores a broader failure to balance climate action with the socio-economic needs of those most impacted by the shift, particularly in the Global South.
Loss and Damage: The operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund marks a critical step in addressing climate-induced impacts.
Pledges from Australia and Sweden have increased the fund's capital to $800 million annually, yet this is a mere fraction of the estimated $724 billion required each year to support emerging economies in addressing loss and damage.
The expectation from COP29 was for adequate and predictable financing for the "Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD)." Global civil society organisations (CSOs) also called for the fund to address both economic and non-economic aspects of loss and damage in its financing.
However, the lack of substantial decisions for climate-induced losses and damages highlights the continued inadequacy of international financial support in responding to these challenges.
Adaptation: The expectations included establishing measurable indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and actionable measures for implementing National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).
However, the decision focused on identifying indicators for enabling factors to support adaptation actions, which appears to be a compromise favouring developed nations.
The decision to prioritise human rights and inclusivity in determining these indicators could lead to future progress. Although funding remains insufficient to meet the adaptation needs of vulnerable nations, these indicators might strengthen calls for increased financial support in the future.
Gender and Youth: COP29 also adopted an enhanced 10-year Lima Work Programme and called for a new Gender Action Plan to be developed by 2025. This presents an important opportunity for Parties to raise their ambitions and establish clearer targets, particularly concerning financing and gender equality.
However, the financing goal associated with these efforts lacks concrete commitments to gender-responsive financing. The absence of explicit language on human rights, coupled with vague targets and a lack of enforceable mechanisms, undermines the effectiveness of these proposed actions.
Moreover, no effective measures were adopted to address the needs of marginalised populations, such as indigenous communities and other vulnerable groups, who depend heavily on natural resources and whose cultures and traditions are being devastated by climate change.
One positive note is that COP29 made strides by establishing dedicated spaces for meaningful youth participation, including, for the first time, the inclusion of children in the Youth-led Climate Forum.
While this marks an encouraging development, it remains to be seen how this engagement will translate into substantive influence on future climate negotiations and policy outcomes.
Overall, COP29 has exposed the lack of political goodwill among developed nations to combat climate change. It has underscored the difficulties in securing financial commitments from developed countries to address climate risks.
With a history of unmet promises, there are growing concerns about the likelihood of action to follow through. Countries like Bangladesh, which are among the least developed yet highly vulnerable to climate impacts, now face the risk of their adaptation and mitigation plans being severely hindered.
The indifference displayed by developed nations at COP29 is forcing the LDCs to consider addressing climate challenges independently, further undermining the demand for climate justice.
These decisions have sparked outrage among climate experts, national and international organisations, and advocacy groups. The effectiveness of the 29-year-long climate negotiations is now being questioned.
Md Ramzan Ali and Palash Sarker work under the Climate Change Program of the Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh (CCDB).
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and views of The Business Standard.
