Missed Opportunities in a Microcosm of Broader Challenges

Dear Margaretha, a very warm welcome back! I believe that the overall sentiment among all of us was one of ambitious expectations for the outcomes of COP29, accompanied by a keen awareness of the acute necessity for a radical transition away from our current unsustainable trajectory towards a green future.

In light these circumstances, do you believe that COP29 has succeeded in formulating clear and tangible strategies to facilitate this transition?

Thank you for the warm welcome. While COP29 did see some progress in specific areas, the overarching sentiment is one of frustration over missed opportunities. The conference did not deliver the outcomes needed to align global action with the scale of the climate crisis. The newly agreed-upon finance goals fall far short of what developing countries require to implement their climate plans and protect their people against climate impacts. The lack of consensus on phasing out fossil fuels underscores the persistent gap between rhetoric and meaningful action. While incremental steps were taken, they are insufficient to catalyze the radical shift needed for a just transition.

In our interview prior to COP29, you stated that a crucial element of a significant outcome is the establishment of an ambitious New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance that aligns with the priorities of developing countries. It seems that consensus could not be reached on the NCQG, which was a point of contention during the negotiations. Could you please provide us with a detailed account of the events that transpired in Baku and a clear understanding of the final outcome? Furthermore, could you elaborate on how this will impact developing countries in their transition process?

The NCQG negotiations epitomized the enduring inequalities in the global financial system. The decision to set a goal of $300 billion per year by 2035 was met with disappointment and strong objections from many developing countries, who view it as grossly inadequate. The process itself was criticized for sidelining dissenting voices, most notably India, and for lacking transparency.

For developing countries, this outcome exacerbates existing challenges. The reliance on loans and private finance perpetuates cycles of debt and dependence, while the absence of any guarantees on grant-based finance undermines their capacity to implement ambitious climate actions. The text “acknowledges the need for public and grant-based resources and highly concessional finance, particularly for adaptation and responding to loss and damage” but does little to address it.

The lack of specific provisions on funds for loss and damage is a particularly regrettable gap in the outcome, leaving the most vulnerable nations without sufficient means to address the devastating impacts of climate change.

During the COP29, a meeting of the G20 leaders was held. This meeting was characterised as an impetus for climate action, with the assembled leaders urging the negotiators in Baku to ‘scale up climate finance from billions to trillions from all sources’. Yet, there was no mention of a phase-out of fossil fuels. I interested to hear your views on the G20 leaders meeting as well as the role of the BRICS States in this context.

The G20 meeting was certainly notable for its call to scale up climate finance from billions to trillions, though leaders remained ambiguous about sources. The lack of a reference to the ‘transitioning away from fossil fuels’ pledge agreed at COP28 was a glaring omission in the leaders’ declaration, though the text did ‘fully subscribe’ to the COP28 outcome. The BRICS nations have a pivotal role in these negotiations, balancing their dual identities as major emerging economies and representatives of the Global South. Brazil showed leadership during its G20 presidency, progressing discussion on taxing the world’s richest, sustainable development and net zero targets. The Global North’s following through on climate finance and technology transfer commitments would enable BRICS to lead by example in the transition to low-carbon pathways.

There appears to be a glimmer of hope in the established standards for the global carbon market under Article 6(4) Paris Agreement, as agreed upon by the negotiators in Baku. Or is there an overreliance on this crediting mechanism?

The establishment of standards for the global carbon market under Article 6(4) is a significant step, though one may question whether it is a step in the right direction. Overreliance on market mechanisms risks shifting the burden of climate action away from systemic change. While carbon markets can potentially drive investments in renewable energy and emissions reductions, they are not a substitute for robust national policies, direct climate finance, and ambitious mitigation commitments. At worst, they distract from these imperatives. At the very least, ensuring that these mechanisms operate transparently and equitably is crucial, particularly for developing countries, to avoid repeating the pitfalls of past initiatives.

We also discussed the topic of loss and damage funding, as well as other potential avenues for redress for climate-vulnerable countries. Could you please provide us an insight into whether the COP29 has made any headway on the outstanding questions related to this matter?

Unfortunately, COP29’s progress on loss and damage funding remains extremely limited. While the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund at COP28 was a landmark achievement, this year’s conference failed to draw the link with the NCQG—an omission which now overshadows its operationalization. This leaves vulnerable countries in the same precarious position, as they continue to grapple with the impacts of climate change without adequate support. The absence of binding commitments from developed countries to pay up for loss and damage reflects a broader reluctance to address the root causes of climate inequality.

Do you believe that the results of COP29, as well as the lack thereof, will have an impact on the advisory opinion to be issued by the International Court of Justice?

The outcomes of COP29 will undoubtedly influence the ICJ’s advisory opinion, particularly in highlighting the disparity between existing action—real and pledged– and the action required to address the climate crisis in accordance with international law. The inadequacies in climate finance reinforce the importance of clarity on the broader international legal framework applicable to climate change. The advisory opinion provides an opportunity to affirm the legal consequences for states that have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, especially vis-à-vis those most affected by this harm.

I have two final questions for you. What is your overall impression of COP29? And how do you believe this will impact the future, particularly given the unpredictability the world is currently facing?

COP29 was a microcosm of the broader challenges facing international climate governance: incremental progress overshadowed by deep systemic inequalities. While there were advancements in areas like carbon markets and adaptation, the failure to agree on ambitious finance goals and mitigation measures reflects a troubling lack of urgency and disregard for justice.

Looking forward, the outcomes of COP29 underscore the need for a more inclusive and equitable approach to climate negotiations. The world’s most vulnerable populations cannot afford further delays. The path ahead must prioritize trust-building, equitable finance mechanisms, and a commitment to phasing out fossil fuels. Only then can we hope to align international efforts with the scale of the crisis.

Dear Margaretha, I am most grateful to you for taking the time to share your invaluable insights, which have helped us and, I am sure, our readers gain a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding this year’s COP29.

Thank you for hosting this important symposium.