Negotiators from some countries said the climate finance deal agreed at Cop29 was a “travesty of justice” and should never have been adopted.
The climate change conference came to a dramatic close early Sunday morning when negotiators reached an agreement to triple the flow of climate finance to poor countries.
Developing countries had called on rich countries to provide $1.3 trillion (about £1.08 trillion) a year to help decarbonise their economies and deal with the effects of the climate crisis. But the final agreement commits just $300 billion a year, with a goal of just $1.3 trillion.
The figure is up from an earlier $100 billion pledge, but Indian negotiator Chandni Raina said it was “terribly meager” compared to what was needed.
“In our opinion, this does not address the enormity of the challenge that we all face,” she said at the negotiating table shortly after the deal was given in.
For Raina, an adviser to India’s Ministry of Economic Affairs, it wasn’t just the goal itself that caused anger, but also the process by which it was ultimately achieved.
Hours before the end of COP29, when an agreement seemed unlikely, representatives from the United States, Colombia and several African countries were seen huddled together poring over the document. The draft was circulated before it was released to the public, and rumors circulated that last-minute deals were being made at the conference center.
Developing countries condemn ‘insufficient’ Cop29 agreement – video
Raina said the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which convenes the annual Cop Summit, aims to make decisions by consensus. He said India had planned to issue a statement of opposition before the decision was adopted, but was not given the opportunity to do so.
Lane said the $300 billion pledge was “managed in stages.” “This document is nothing more than an optical illusion,” she said.
In an interview with the Guardian shortly after making his remarks, Raina called Goal’s inclusion “outrageous.” “This was a complete travesty of justice,” she said.
Raina said the Cop29 Presidency did not adopt another key negotiation item, known as the UAE Dialogue. The document follows commitments made at last year’s Cop28 to transition away from fossil fuels, which countries rejected as being too weak.
Raina said the climate finance item should have been treated similarly. “It’s unclear what the legality is here,” she says.
Catherine Pettenger, an advocate with the NGO Climate Action Network UK, said the procedural choices could undermine confidence in the UN climate change process.
“Developing countries have been forced to accept one half-measure after another, but at Cop29, these half-measures are the ones least responsible for the costs of climate change. “We are imposing it on those who will suffer the worst consequences,” she said.
The goal left a bitter taste in the mouths of other negotiators. “It is a joke to say that developed countries will take the lead with $300 billion by 2035,” Nigeria’s representative said after the document was adopted. “We do not accept this.”
He said developing countries such as Nigeria, a major oil producer, would need more support to reduce emissions.
Panama’s Special Representative for Climate Change, Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez, also questioned the process by which the targets were adopted.
Skip past newsletter promotions
The most important story on earth. Get all of this week’s environmental news – the good, the bad and the important.
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may include information about charities, online advertising, and content sponsored by external parties. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and are subject to the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
After newsletter promotion
“The gavel was struck too soon. Our hearts go out to all the countries that feel downtrodden,” he said. “The developed world always throws a document at us at the last minute and shoves it down our throats. And in the interest of multilateralism we always have to accept it, otherwise the climate mechanism will face a dire downward spiral. You’ll end up in a spiral where no one can accept anyone.” That’s what’s needed. ”
Hours before the document was adopted, delegations from small island states and least developed countries walked out of a meeting, saying their interests in climate finance were being ignored.
The Least Developed Countries (LDC) negotiating bloc, which represents 45 countries and 1.1 billion people, said Sunday’s agreement undermined three years of negotiations on climate finance targets.
“This was casually dismissed,” the LDC statement said. “Despite our exhaustive efforts to work with key companies, our pleas were met with indifference. This outright dismissal undermines the fragile trust underpinning these negotiations and undermines global solidarity.” It makes a mockery of the spirit of
Sunday’s agreement did not allocate specific amounts to “particularly vulnerable” LDCs or low-lying islands. However, this group did earn mention in the text.
“The climate change finance expert at the Inter-American Development Bank, Avinash Persaud, served as an advisor to Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley. We are now reaching the threshold between what is politically achievable in the developed world and what can make a difference in the developing world.
Raina said the document does not include adequate protections for other developing countries. “All developing countries need money,” he said, adding that India’s per capita emissions are much lower than those of developed countries.
Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, a climate economist at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the most important part of the Cop29 funding deal was that it existed in the first place. He said the multilateral system of international cooperation was not as broken down as it sometimes seemed possible.
“The Baku climate summit was not a success, but at best it avoided a diplomatic disaster,” he said. But he added that different methods are now needed to tackle the climate crisis, including cooperation between smaller groups of countries.
Others took a less optimistic view. Tracy Carty of Greenpeace International said fossil fuel companies, which have made $1 trillion a year in profits for half a century, should have been forced to contribute to the pool of money.
Nafkoat Dabi, head of climate policy at Oxfam International, called the deal a “global pyramid scheme”. “Destruction of the planet is avoidable, but not with this shabby and disgraceful trade,” she said.
