As the dust settles after COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, IIED’s executive director Tom Mitchell reflects on a ‘squandered opportunity’ to address the climate emergency and calls for reform of the COP process, to ensure adaptation and loss and damage finance reach those who most need it.COP29 in Baku will be remembered as a squandered opportunity to turn promises of climate action into reality. Despite being framed as the 'Finance COP', the outcomes reveal a deepening chasm between rhetoric and action.
While COP continues to be a critical platform where least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) have an equal seat at the table, the decisions made at this year’s summit fall far short of what is needed to address the scale of the climate emergency we all face.
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on finance was meant to be a landmark step in tackling the disproportionate impacts of climate change, which hits the poorest, lowest emitting communities the hardest. Instead, it delivers vague commitments, insufficient funding and fails to address the local priorities of the worst-hit communities.
Empty words on finance
Additionally, a dangerous precedent is emerging, as adaptation finance is increasingly being diverted to cover loss and damage. This was never the intention, yet countries are now splitting their already inadequate climate action budgets into smaller and smaller slices of the overall Overseas Development Assistance pie.
The alarmingly low replenishment of the Adaptation Fund jeopardises the ability of countries to adapt to the devastating climate impacts they are already experiencing. Robbing resources designed to prevent or minimise harm and diverting them to cover what is effectively post-disaster recovery, is both short-sighted and counterproductive.
The failures at COP29 echo the disappointments of the UN biodiversity conference (COP16). There, critical decisions on resource mobilisation and financial mechanisms were postponed, and pledges to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF) fell drastically short – just US$163 million pledged against the $30 billion per year target.
Without direct channels for nature finance to reach Indigenous Peoples and local communities, action on biodiversity loss will also stall.
Failing on leadership
COP29 also failed to reinforce a bold ambition on fossil fuel phase-out to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. This is particularly alarming in a year when global temperatures have already breached this threshold, and the world has faced devastating floods, droughts, wildfires and heatwaves. All eyes will now turn to the Nationally Determined Contributions, due from each country in the next few months, and the efforts of the new Brazilian presidency to amp up mitigation ambition in a fractured world.
Even within the NCQG, the absence of precise targets and the prevalence of ambiguous language reflects a troubling lack of accountability. This is not just poor governance and an open door for creative accounting: it is a recipe for ongoing devastation in the most vulnerable communities.
The lack of transparency on climate finance grants means a very real risk that LDCs and SIDS will be saddled with yet more loans, increasing the burden of debt they simply cannot afford.
The link between the climate crisis and the sovereign debt crisis cannot be ignored, but persisting siloes between COP processes and influential bodies on finance like the G20 and International Monetary Fund are obstructing meaningful solutions. Wealthier nations must break down these barriers to enable developing countries to invest in adaptation and resilience without exacerbating their debt crisis.
Returning all LDCs and SIDS to a sustainable level of debt as fast as possible is a crucial part of the climate action picture, but references to this were all but expunged from COP outcome texts.
The growing need for reform
The voices of LDCs and SIDS are critical to the COP process. COP remains one of the few forums where these nations can demand accountability, highlight their capabilities and advocate for their needs on an equal footing. However, the growing influence of fossil fuel lobbyists – who received more passes to COP29 than all the delegates from the 10 most climate-vulnerable nations combined – undermines the integrity and inclusiveness of these negotiations.
The process must be reformed to reflect the urgency and gravity of the crisis. Consistent with the principles of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UNFCCC and its executive secretary must take bold steps to create a more balanced and ambitious COP.
There is also a need to integrate the climate, biodiversity and desertification conventions more effectively. These crises are interconnected yet the mechanisms to address them remain fragmented.
The path forward
Despite these setbacks, IIED will continue to advocate for justice and action backed by evidence and scalable solutions. We believe that as geopolitics become increasingly fractured, the UK has an added obligation to re-energise its leadership on climate change.
In 2025, IIED looks forward to engaging with Brazil and South Africa, as they assume the climate COP and G20 presidencies respectively, and also with Denmark during its EU presidency, which will coincide with COP30 and the 4th UN Financing for Development Conference.
Moving forward, we must influence the system from all ends – not just through traditional bureaucratic channels such as the COPs. IIED is committed to supporting alternative mechanisms such as the Climate and Development Ministerial process which is becoming an increasingly critical platform to build trust, momentum and practical solutions for climate finance.
COP29 has shown us what happens when leadership falters. Now is the time to demand meaningful finance that reaches those who need it most, so that LDCs and SIDs can build a climate-resilient future that benefits us all. Now is the time to take up the challenge to reform the COP process and integrate solutions for climate and nature.
As we look to the future, multilateralism must be strengthened in the face of a fractured geopolitical landscape. The stakes could not be higher. Lives, livelihoods, homes and ecosystems depend on the decisions we make – or fail to make – today and into 2025.
*Contributed by Tom Mitchell (tom.mitchell@iied.org) is executive director of IIED
No comments:
Post a Comment