Why COP29 left more questions than answers
As the dust settles on COP29, the climate talks continue to draw criticism globally, with some labelling the summit as a failure and a disappointment. A missed opportunity.
In Baku, Azerbaijan, wealthy nations, once again, fell short of expectations from developing nations, leaving billions of people on the climate frontline feeling betrayed.
Here’s a look at the pressing issues that COP29 failed to address:
$1.3 Trillion and No Goal
Termed as the ‘‘Finance COP’’, COP29 fell far short of its financial expectations. Developing countries were asking for $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 for climate finance—a critical figure for addressing the climate crisis.
Instead, the final text that came out nearly 24 hours after the end of the COP contained a mere $300 billion to finance climate interventions annually. This figure is grossly inconsistent with the scale of financing required for climate action. It also reflects bad faith on the part of global powers in the multilateral climate process.
Loss and Damage Fund: progress or hollow victory?
After it was operationalised last year, COP29 decided to fully operationalise the Loss and Damage Fund. The current total pledges to the L&D Fund stand at about $759 million. This is good progress. But some issues remain unresolved.
Despite calls to have countries step up and honour their commitments, only a handful of countries have made good their pledges.
At COP29, only $85 million was added to the fund against an estimated $200-$400 billion required annually to meet the needs of vulnerable communities. At the moment, however, the fund has received only $69 million.
There was also no progress on setting up a replenishment mechanism or how to assess needs.
Meanwhile, discussions on the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and Santiago Network were kicked down the road to SB62.
“Unfortunately, COP29 did not deliver the kind of action or finance needed to address the scale of Loss and Damage already harming vulnerable countries,’’ argues Ana Mulio Alavarez, a researcher at E3G.
Anna warns that without a replenishment mechanism or a subgoal for Loss and Damage under the new climate finance goal, ‘‘the future of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage remains unclear.’’
‘‘How will vulnerable countries continue to cope with the increasing impacts of climate change?” she wonders.
Carbon Markets
Negotiators reached an agreement to establish a global structure for carbon markets. This framework allows countries to authorize carbon credit transactions and manage tracking systems to promote transparency and environmental integrity.
However, this comes against the backdrop of persistent ethical issues surrounding carbon markets. Pressing questions like double counting of carbon credits and the minimum duration of carbon storage remained unanswered.
A 2024 study by Nature Communications revealed that less than 16% of the carbon credits examined resulted in real emission reductions.
Interestingly, projects such as wind power and improved forest management showed no significant impact on emissions.
These flaws have real-world implications.
In 2023, the Kenyan government faced legal action for forcibly evicting the Indigenous Ogiek community from their ancestral lands. Reports from the BBC linked these evictions to a carbon trading deal signed by the government.
The new rules lack clear consequences for countries that fail to comply. This creates a dangerous gap in accountability, leaving vulnerable communities at risk of exploitation.
Adaptation
The world needs $387 billion each year by 2030 for adaptation, according to UNEP’s Adaptation Gap Report, making the Baku deal significantly insufficient to cover adaptation alone.
This year, only $130 million has been pledged to the Adaptation Fund, far below the $300 million needed. How will vulnerable communities adapt to live?
The lack of an Adaptation sub-goal within the NCQG threatens to sideline adaptation as mitigation takes all the spotlight within climate finance discussions.
COP29 advancements in the Global Goal on Adaptation are promising, but without adequate funding, these efforts may lead nowhere.
Gender at COP29
This COP was critical as it was meant to implement the Lima Work Programme on Gender and its Gender Action Plan. In Baku, we were supposed to implement the outcome of gender discussions at local and regional workshops over the years.
COP29, however, failed to sufficiently address gender concerns with the contention being the means of implementation and language on human rights, intersectionality and diversity. This affected the outcome and eroded the efforts of many years. We will now have to restart the process, which is not good.
‘‘Gender is being ignored and treated as an add-on and an afterthought in the climate discourse. There is nothing to suggest it is being treated as a priority. As a cross-cutting issue that ought to be mainstreamed, it is important to elevate gender conversations. Perhaps training workshops on gender at the national regional and UNFCCC level will unlock this,’’ says Ndivile Mokoena, the projects coordinator at Gender CC.
Just Transition Work Programme
Unlike finance negotiations that ended with a weak deal, those on the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), unfortunately, ended with no agreement between parties.
Based on the negotiations in Baku, this lack of a deal is perhaps a positive outcome for Africa and the Global South as we look ahead to COP30.
Since the Paris Agreement at COP21, just transition has made notable progress as a key negotiation item. COP29 was supposed to take this conversation to the next step, including agreeing on action plans and implementation.
Most importantly, the deliberations in Baku needed to reassure workers globally who fear the loss of their jobs through the transition. But COP29 failed in this regard.
So, what is the JTWP and why is it important?
Negotiations under the JTWP aim to shift the global economy towards a climate-resilient model that supports workers, communities and industries impacted by climate change. It will ensure socioeconomic equity and environmental sustainability.
‘‘A just transition promotes fairness, international cooperation and shared prosperity,’’ explains Kudakwashe Manjonjo, a renewable energy associate at Power Shift Africa.
He adds that this model addresses the challenges associated with the transitions by cushioning people. Adds Manjonjo: ‘‘It eliminates job or income losses for workers and reduces further degradation of the environment.’’