Frustration marks first week of COP29 as climate finance talks stall

The first week of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, concluded with frustration over the lack of progress on climate finance, a key issue at the summit, which has been dubbed the "finance COP."

The talks, which were 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 PowerShift Africa described as "unnerving" delays in financing discussions. He compared the pace to pre-Paris Agreement COPs and 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 countries like China to contribute.

Meanwhile, developing nations, represented by Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Climate Change envoy, have accused richer nations of focusing on ambitious climate targets without addressing the financial needs of the Global South. "No number, no ambition," Mohammed said, summarising the dissatisfaction of over 20 nations.

Negotiators began with a nine-page draft of the NCQG agreement. By the end of the week, 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. The debate, however, is not just about numbers but also the forms of finance—whether grants, loans, or mobilized 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 alleviate concerns over escalating financial targets.

The summit has also been marked by political controversies. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's characterization of fossil fuels as a “gift from God” drew sharp criticism, particularly from Brazil's Environment Minister Marina Silva. The absence of major global leaders, including 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, but this was met with resistance from Saudi Arabia, Bolivia, and India, who rejected any new prescriptive measures. The debate became so contentious that co-chairs suggested delaying talks until mid-2025, a proposal that was opposed by New Zealand and Switzerland, who emphasized the urgency of the climate crisis.

The World Meteorological Organisation reported that global temperatures between January and September 2024 exceeded pre-industrial levels by 1.54°C. Meanwhile, the Global Carbon Budget report revealed record-high emissions of 41.6 billion tons in 2024, signaling that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has yet to peak. Despite this alarming data, only a few nations—Brazil, the UAE, and the UK—have committed to updating their emission reduction plans to align with the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target.

As ministers prepare to take over negotiations in week two, expectations remain mixed. The NCQG agreement has been reduced to 25 pages but still contains over 400 unresolved points. The COP29 presidency, led by Mukhtar Babayev, faces immense pressure to broker compromises on both finance and emissions reductions.

The possibility of a high-profile cover text remains the only hope for progress. This non-binding statement could reflect broad commitments without tying governments to specific actions. However, achieving consensus on such a text would require significant diplomatic effort.

COP29's second week will determine whether the summit can deliver meaningful outcomes or become another example of unfulfilled promises. For now, the talks remain mired in technical debates, political divisions, and escalating demands for accountability.