COP29 deal: ‘Betrayal of the most vulnerable’ or what was ‘politically achievable’?

By Rabia Ali

ISTANBUL (AA) – 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.

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 views such as the COP29 agreement representing “the most that was politically achievable.”

- ‘A betrayal of the world’s most vulnerable’

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 principle 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.

“Developed countries got away with a highly inadequate quantum, which ensures that developing countries will be footing most of the bill of climate change by themselves,” he said.

“They got away with very uncertain, indeterminate language on quality, which doesn’t commit them to providing quality finance, but could essentially mean more market rate loans.”

He also criticized the timeline, pointing out that the world is facing “a critical decade through to 2030,” which makes the 2035 goal “really too late.”

The figure of $300 billion, he added, does not even begin to cover the actual costs for developing countries, which would be “at least over $1 trillion per year.”

The consequences of this agreement are something “we will, unfortunately, have to live with for many years to come,” he said.

- Deal ‘represents the most that was politically achievable’

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.

“Finance has long been the major sticking point in international climate negotiations, and there was little to suggest it was going to be adequately resolved at COP29,” he added.

A key reason here is that developed countries, who are facing their own economic problems, “will have been acutely aware that the country that should be paying the most based on historical emissions, the US, is now likely to contribute nothing at all,” said Aylett.

“From this perspective, this agreement represents the most that was politically achievable.”

- ‘A considerable step up’

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-wing 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, and even if, ultimately, it’s in the interests of developed countries to ensure that we have a global transition to a decarbonized economy. “

While Hilson agrees that $300 billion is not enough to secure a “just transition,” it is better than the previous $100 billion, and pointed out that “there is room in the language of the Baku text to build it towards the $1 trillion figure that was being asked for.”

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.

He emphasized the importance of contributions from private finance, saying they should not be dismissed as trivial.

“Take, for example, the billions in capital raised over the past decade to decarbonize the global economy through the transition to renewable and other sources of clean energy,” he said.

He also believes that the much-maligned carbon markets can make a meaningful contribution to climate finance flows if they are properly structured and governed.

In Baku, he explained, there was “a final deal on the broad rules to launch large-scale carbon trading.”

“This paves the way to potentially unlocking trillions in emissions trading receipts to developing countries, subject to UN oversight,” he said.

- ‘Good COP, bad COP’

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.

“It would have been naive to have expected a materially better result from this specific COP, at this moment in history,” he reiterated.

“However, what I do detect among those committed to fighting climate change is a certain steeliness and resolve, with first the US election and now this disappointing COP outcome combining to produce a galvanizing effect.”

A positive outcome could be that people are now “more clear-eyed now about the need for different structures and vehicles, to move towards coalitions of the willing, circumventing countries that have long sought to stymie progress, and inoculating crucial negotiations against the influence of fossil fuel interests,” he added.

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.”