It was quite evident to everyone, particularly those who are directly part of the ever-enlarging global climate change circle, that COP29’s edition in Baku, Azerbaijan (held during 11-22 November) would be a difficult affair. In the run-up to the grand event, a few speculative theories were doing the rounds – that, in the worst possible scenario, the Global North and South would unabashedly draw swords on the most critical issue of climate finance. And, the final outcome, unfortunately, reflects the worst expectations bettered by the participants.
An agreement was finally announced at the end of the summit, which contained an announcement of commitment by the developed world, which is roughly one-fourth of the sum developing and what the emerging economies were seeking. And there is a larger feeling that this is just a half-baked approach (after the conclusion of the event, reports have appeared that the agreement was stage-managed by the block of developed nations), even as the clock is now ticking fast to contain the ascendancy in average global temperature witnessed all around.
Speaking on the outcome of the summit, even Simon Stiell, executive secretary, UN Climate Change, described the new finance goal agreed as ‘an insurance policy for humanity’. “But like any insurance policy – it only works – if the premiums are paid in full, and on time,” he said in a guarded statement. “So, this is no time for victory laps,” he did not forget to add.
Major takeaways
The summit has undoubtedly raised more questions than it has answered – particularly about how the collaborative global drive to save planet earth will unfold. The most troublesome pointer is: it has made clear that the alignment gaps between the two sides of the divide have widened, rather than bridged in the recent past.
It would probably be no exaggeration to say that the summit was doomed right from the outset, as the top leadership of the world that includes American President Joe Biden, Chinese President Jingping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and a host of other top leaders, decided to stay away from the negotiation this time.
In the western media, the absence of top-notch leaders was largely seen as the mark of a larger apprehension the leading countries had vis-à-vis an amicable solution. “It’s symptomatic of the lack of political will to act,” remarked Bill Hare, CEO, Climate Analytics, a noted climate scientist. “There’s no sense of urgency”. He felt this explained “the absolute mess we’re finding ourselves in”.
In a nutshell, the most important declaration at COP was the promise of trebling finance to developing countries, from the previous goal of $100 billion to $300 billion annually by 2035. The declaration does talk about raising the amount by $1.3 trillion by 2035, but only if the remaining quantum would be footed by private agencies.
“The new finance goal at COP29 builds on significant strides forward on global climate action at COP27 (which agreed an historic Loss and Damage Fund) and COP28 (which delivered a global agreement to transition away from all fossil fuels in energy systems swiftly and fairly, triple renewable energy and boost climate resilience),” affirmed a formal release by the UN Climate Change.
An agreement was also announced on carbon markets to “help countries deliver their climate plans more quickly and cheaply and make faster progress in halving global emissions this decade, as required by science.” This specific agreement promises to authorise the trade of carbon credits and bring in a transparent mechanism for transparent tracking of these transactions.
The negotiations at the summit also resulted in a broader agreement in initiating a support programme for the implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for the LDCs. “Aspects on co-ordination to ensure their countries’ targets do not exceed 1.5 temperatures and enhance adaptation and mitigation interventions were discussed between developed and developing countries making some headway,” says Gaurav Kedia, chairman, Indian Biogas Association, who attended the event.
Agreement under fire
But the small gains made at the summit pale into insignificance when one looks at the torrential disappointing notes coming from the Global South quarters. India, which has been quite vocal in the recent years at the summit and a leading assertive actor in demanding developed countries to foot the bill for the damage they have caused, made no bones about emphasising that negotiations are not showing any concrete sign of progression.
“We feel disappointed by the fact that we continue to shift focus when the time has come to ensure that the mitigation actions are fully supported through provisions of adequate Finances as per CBDR-RC and equity considerations,” observed Leena Nandan, secretary, MoEFCC & deputy leader of the delegation). “COP after COP, we keep talking about mitigation ambitions – what is to be done, without talking about how it is to be done – in other words, the enablement of mitigation ambitions. This COP started focussing on enablement through New Collective Quantitative Goals (NCQG) but, as we move towards the end, we see a shifting of the focus to mitigation”.
India was quite vocal again in demanding that the agreement document should be specific on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access, transparency and review. “The goal for mobilisation needs to be $1.3 trillion, with $600 billion of this coming through grants and grants equivalent resources.
Expansion of the contributor base, reflection of conditional elements, such as macro-economic and fiscal measures, suggestion for carbon pricing, focus on private sector actors for scaling up resource flows as investments, which are contrary to the mandate for the goal,” a formal statement underlined. It had also strongly protested against changing the scope of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) in the draft text.
However, the plea of India and other countries, which have been urging the developed countries to take responsibility, did not cut much ice and the agreement unveiling saw walkouts by several nations and blocks including India, AoSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) and LDCs (Least Developed Countries) calling it inequitable and inadequate. “India, representing the interests of the Global South, rejected the inequitable agreement and processes on the climate finance goal. COP29 has failed the developing world, which are most affected by the climate crisis, a problem they did not cause,” said Vibha Dhawan, DG, TERI.
Of the nearly 200 countries, which participated in the Baku summit, serious opposition also came from other developing blocks. “The G77 and the China bloc rejected the ‘substantial framework for a draft negotiating text’ for inadequately representing their views, thereby exemplifying the growing trust deficit between the developed and developing world,” adds Prashant Singh, CEO, Blue Planet, and a regular at COP events.
Some of the participants from India confirm that the discussion atmosphere was further vitiated by the uncalled-for comment by the host country President Ilham Aliyev when he described fossil reserves as a ‘gift of God’. It was interpreted as a plea to not lose out in further harnessing of the fossil reserves (his country is rich in it) when an important discussion point at the summit was to expedite the adoption of non-fossil sources.
Hazy future
The outcome of COP29 has clearly created more serious doubts than ever before. The moot point is: as a global platform, will it lead in the desired direction of putting in right collaborative efforts to implement climate change goals in time? There were many analysts at the event, who presented a grim scenario on climate change front and how countries across the planet are failing to take serious note of it.
The latest report of Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, unveiled before Baku Summit, once again boldly underlined how rising temperatures has begun to take a toll on people across the world vis-à-vis their health and survival. The report maintained that 2023 has been the hottest year in history and, during 2019-23, people were exposed to 46 more days of health-affecting heat than in the past.
Another startling report released by Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research early this year has projected a staggering loss for the global economy of about 19 per cent income in the next 25 years, due to climate change, which could well amount to a staggering $38 trillion by 2049.
“Our analysis shows climate change will cause massive economic damages within the next 25 years in almost all countries around the world – also in the highly developed ones, such as Germany, France and the US,” commented Leonie Wenz, a scientist, who led the study.
Interestingly, the projected loss is estimated to be about six times more than what it would cost to reduce carbon emissions enough to keep the average temperature rise below two degrees Celsius. It is quite evident that a sense of despondency is now becoming a defining sentiment for stakeholders with low action unfolding around.
“Among the simpler ways to save the planet is afforestation but deforestation was still rampantly exploited, where more than 6.4 million hectares of forest cover was lost, almost the size of Sri Lanka, in 2023 alone,” says Prashant Singh, while citing a recent IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report that has strongly observed that there is slim to no chance of even achieving below 3-degree temperature rise by the turn of the century.
The Paris Climate Agreement signed in 2015 is the fulcrum of global efforts to check climate and set the goal of keeping the average global temperature to well below 2 degree centigrade by the end of the century (later revised to 1.5 degree). However, with trends in recent years this target is unlikely to be met.
The declared goal is clearly a prisoner of the geopolitics of the present times and is paltry, when compared to the financing needs of mitigation and adaptation faced by the developing world
The outcome of Cop29 has further delivered a blow to the growing concerns on lack of a unified effort to deal with the most serious challenge of the century. “The multilateral process has not emerged in good light in this event,” says R.R. Rashmi, distinguished fellow with TERI.
“The declared goal is clearly a prisoner of the geopolitics of the present times and is paltry, when compared to the financing needs of mitigation and adaptation faced by the developing world”. Another senior analyst calls the agreement at Baku an exercise in tokenism, which has raised serious question marks about COP surviving this breach of trust and the Paris Agreement crumbling under the weight of broken commitments.
The return of Donal Trump at the helm in the US is being seen as a bad omen for the collaborative efforts of the nations to deal with climate issues. His aversion to contributing the share of world’s largest economy to global climate finance kitty is well-known and, if he sticks to his guns, the future COP may become even more difficult than what the current one eventually turned out to be.