Climate finance talks stall amid frustrations

The first week of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with frustration over lack of progress on climate finance — a key issue of the summit dubbed the “Finance COP.”

The talks, expected to deliver a new collective quantitative goal (NCQG) for funding climate action, have been slow and contentious.

Azerbaijan’s presidency celebrated an early success with an intergovernmental agreement on a global carbon credit system.

However, the achievement was overshadowed by what Mohammed Adow of Power Shift Africa called “unnerving” delays in financing discussions. Comparing the pace to pre-Paris Agreement COPs, he expressed disappointment at the lack of momentum.

The NCQG, which aims to replace the $100 billion annual commitment by developed nations, has proven divisive. Developed nations, including the EU, are pushing for a broadened donor base, calling on nations like China to contribute.

Developing nations, represented by Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s representative for Climate Change, have accused richer nations of focusing on ambitious climate targets without addressing the financial needs of the Global South. “No number, no ambition,” Mohamed said, summarising the dissatisfaction of over 20 nations.

Negotiators started with a nine-page draft of the NCQG agreement.

READ: COP29 confronts alarming climate data as global stakes rise

By week’s end, it had expanded to 35 pages, filled with options and unresolved language. Developing nations are calling for at least $1 trillion annually, a figure that includes investments in renewable energy and adaptation measures.

However, the debate is not just about numbers but also the forms of finance—whether grants, loans, or mobilised private sector funding.

Multilateral development banks (MDBs) have emerged as key players. The World Bank and others announced plans to increase climate finance for low- and middle-income countries from $75 billion to $120 billion annually by 2030.

Eleonora Cogo of ECCO called this a “big step forward,” noting it could reduce fears over escalating financial targets.

The summit has also been marked by political controversies. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s characterisation of fossil fuel as a “gift from God” drew sharp criticism, particularly from Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva.

The absence of major global leaders like Joe Biden, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin has further dampened expectations.

Negotiations on fossil fuel transitions have faltered. A coalition of developed and vulnerable nations advocated for stricter targets, including phasing out coal.

This was met with resistance from Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, and India, who rejected any new prescriptive measures.

The debate grew so contentious that co-chairs suggested delaying talks until mid-2025, a proposal that New Zealand and Switzerland opposed, citing the urgency of the climate crisis.

Adding urgency to the discussions, the World Meteorological Organization reported that global temperatures between January and September 2024 exceeded pre-industrial levels by 1.54 degrees Celsius.

As ministers prepare to take over negotiations in week two, expectations are mixed. The NCQG agreement has been reduced to 25 pages but still contains over 400 unresolved.