Baku: As COP29 drew to a close, a chorus of disappointed voices rose around the world, with climate experts and advocates leading criticism of an agreement they say fell well short of what is needed to tackle the biggest threat to humanity. At the summit, where nearly 200 countries held heated discussions for days at end, rich countries set a new target of mobilizing at least $300 billion annually for developing countries by 2035. This was part of an overall climate financing target to reach ‘at least $1.3 trillion by 2035,’ with the funds to be raised through a wide variety of sources, including public finance and bilateral and multilateral deals.
According to Anadolu Agency, experts and officials from developing and vulnerable nations have blasted the new pledges as a ‘betrayal’ and a ‘joke,’ stressing that the figures come nowhere close to what affected nations need on an urgent basis. Others, while acknowledging the apparent shortcomings and concerns of those most affected, put forward more pragmatic vie
ws such as the COP29 agreement representing ‘the most that was politically achievable.’
The outcome of this UN climate summit is ‘undoubtedly the most unbalanced decision’ ever seen, said Iskander Erzini Vernoit, co-founder and director at the Imal Initiative for Climate and Development, a think tank based in Morocco. This climate finance deal is ‘a betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable, of the Paris Agreement, and of common sense,’ he told Anadolu. ‘It was a text which was really produced according to the developed country positions, and it is a devastating blow to the developing countries and the interests of the Global South,’ he said.
The agreement, in many ways, represents a regression from the previous approach, where it was purely about developed nations mobilizing finance for developing countries, he continued. This one, he explained, is a mobilization goal that is collectively for all countries, where developed countries are only taking the lead. ‘For that reason, it’s a massive blow to the princ
iple of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities,’ he asserted. Vernoit pointed out how several negotiators from the Global South were ‘absolutely devastated’ by the decision.
Chris Aylett, a research associate with the Environment and Society Center at Chatham House, described the final sum agreed as ‘light years away from what is needed.’ ‘The $300 billion headline figure also replicates the weakness of the previous $100 billion target by putting all sources of finance into the same basket, with public grants not distinguished from private market-rate loans, despite very different implications for recipient countries, particularly those that are already debt-stressed,’ he explained. While the deal is disappointing, it should not come as a surprise to the developing countries, he said.
Chris Hilson, a professor at the University of Reading, said the funds pledged are ‘realistic’ given the situation many developed countries are facing in terms of rising costs of living and the rise of right-win
g populists. ‘Populist candidates are becoming increasingly visible in national elections, with Romania a recent example, and of course Donald Trump in the US,’ Hilson, a climate and environmental law expert, told Anadolu. ‘Many are climate sceptics nationalists, who won’t look favorably on what they see as foreign ‘aid,’ even if climate finance is in fact a matter of legal obligation under the Paris Agreement.’
Michael Wilkins, a senior sustainable finance professional at Imperial College’s Center for Climate Finance and Investment, said the new figure is ‘a considerable step up.’ ‘While the promised public funding falls way short of the trillions of dollars poor and vulnerable nations say they need … it is still a considerable step up from the $100 billion per annum pledged 15 years ago in Copenhagen, a target that only recently has been achieved,’ he told Anadolu.
However, Chatham House’s Aylett disagrees with this view, warning that the ‘agreement on international carbon market rules … opens the door to
greater carbon offsetting, a potentially problematic substitute for emissions reductions.’ He also pointed to the ‘absence of any reference to fossil fuels’ in the final text, terming it a blow to the momentum around energy transition generated at the previous UN climate summit. Overall, Aylett believes calling COP29 a disaster would be too strong a judgement.
For Hilson, COP29 can be characterized both as a disaster and as something that builds a hopeful foundation towards the next summit in Brazil. ‘We are becoming more aware of what makes a ‘good COP’ and what makes a ‘bad COP,’ and how COP agendas can be hijacked by vested interests,’ he said. ‘Ultimately though, the global economy is changing in the direction of renewables and away from fossil fuels. That economic lever is turning despite the COPs. What future COPs need to do is to ensure it happens faster and more fairly.’