Results of the Climate Conference COP29 in Baku
At the climate conference in Baku - already named in advance the "finance COP" - the results of the negotiations on new financing targets and commitments, bundled under the term NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal), were eagerly awaited. With a goal of annual USD 300 billion of climate finance, the result is disappointing and falls far short of the USD 1.3 trillion per year that experts say is necessary. Other negotiations also proved to be tough. The negotiations on technology development and transfer focused primarily on the structure of the “technology implementation program”.
The influence of national and international geopolitical developments on COP29 in Azerbaijan was clearly visible. On the one hand, there was the fact that the climate conference was once again taking place in a country that bases a large part of its economy on oil and gas production. Then there were the US presidential elections two weeks before the COP, which put a huge damper on expectations of international ambition, particularly with regard to financing commitments. However, the negotiations were also hampered by the obvious blocking of significant progress by individual, mostly oil and gas-rich countries in various areas. It proved difficult on several occasions to even cite the historic decision of the UAE Consensus at COP28 in Dubai with its joint commitment to “moving away from fossil fuels” and the fundamental goals of tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency.
Nevertheless – some relevant outcomes could be derived:
1. The NCQG (New Collective Quantified Goal) for climate finance
The international community agreed on a general call to public and private sources to multiply annual climate finance by factor 13 to USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035 (from the current USD 100 billion). This corresponds to the need for financing for both mitigation and adaptation according to the experts of the IHLEG (Independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance). However this call can be described as well-intentioned appeal, the concrete target was far below with USD 300 billion per year from 2035. What is also new is that the donor base, which previously only included developed countries (according to the classification in Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries under the UNFCCC) for the provision of financial resources, has been expanded and all countries have been called upon to contribute. In addition to public funds, private funds are now also included. This decision to expand the donor base was intensely discussed and a key demand of the EU in light of the fact that countries such as China are now in a much stronger economic position than at the time when the countries were classified under the UNFCCC. The decision was criticized as completely inadequate, particularly by LDCs (Least Developed Countries) and SIDS (Small Island Developing States). The new definition of the donor base, including all countries and private funds, may be used to make a nice looking calculation only but also offers potential for stronger demands on all stakeholders involved.
2. Article 6: Carbon markets
At COP29 in Baku, an important breakthrough was achieved with the operationalization of the market-based cooperative implementation mechanisms under Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement. After years of negotiations, the parties finally agreed on the modalities for establishing the agreement's carbon markets. The new framework is designed to ensure that market activities lead to an overall reduction in global emissions while complying with environmental protection, monitoring and reporting provisions. It is expected that this operationalization will support progress towards achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement in a cost-effective manner.
3. Other achievements
Other successes included the expansion of the work program on gender equality, the provision of guidance for setting indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), the adoption of agreements with the Loss and Damage Fund and the expansion of the mandate for the Platform for Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples. However, several critical issues remained unresolved, including the dialog on the results of the global stocktake. Here, the EU was not prepared to accept the weak decision text, which no longer addressed fossil fuels and the Dubai mitigation measures at all, thus making a clear commitment that the results of the past year are indispensable. The Just Transition Work Program also failed to find agreement at this COP due to numerous points of contention.
4. Technology
The technology negotiations were tenacious, but decisions were agreed on three of the four agenda items.
The Joint Annual Report of the TEC and the CTCN was heavily criticized in particular due to the TEC's policy briefs on the possibility of including hard-to-abate industries (especially steel and cement) in the NDCs and the wording “all genders” in a policy brief on gender-responsive technologies and infrastructure for urban mobility. It should be noted that the TEC also has several members from now critical countries and that the policy briefs were finalized jointly. The joint annual report was therefore neither welcomed nor acknowledged in the decision. However, the decision contains important points on the review process of the CTCN, which will be brought forward in order to streamline the necessary selection process for the future host institution of the CTCN Secretariat. The Secretariat, currently located at UNEP, must be re-tendered or extended in 2026.
The decision on the Poznan strategic program includes the decision for a final evaluation of the program, the results of which are to be incorporated into the design of the technology implementation program. For many years, the Poznan program was an important element through which GEF provided funds explicitly for technology transfer and development. However, as no more funds have been spent since 2014 and individual activities are only still unfinished due to formalities, the conclusion of negotiations in this regard seems necessary. The fact that the issue is still being negotiated probably has deeper reasons: Exclusive access to funds “only” for technology topics no longer exists with the conclusion of the program and even if technology topics are mainstreamed in almost all funding areas in the financial mechanism especially GEF and GCF, the former privilege is reluctantly let go. In addition, the program particularly promoted the creation of TNAs (Technology Needs Assessments), which over 100 countries globally have now completed. They are an elementary tool for identifying national technology priorities and needs - but the next step, addressing the needs and implementation, continues to present massive challenges.
No joint decision could be found on linking the technology mechanism with the financing mechanism (linkages), but it is progress that several negotiating parties are increasingly using the possibility of issuing instructions in the financial areas and are no longer attempting to do so via the technology room.
Technology Implementation Program (tip): The views regarding the design of the tip are manifold. Above all, it is important that the new program does not undermine the functioning of the existing TEC and CTCN institutions. Instead, it should strengthen the institutions in their work. The evaluation of the functions of the CTCN could also be important in this context in order to improve its functioning with the help of the technology implementation program. However, there is currently no consensus on the specific design of the tip. Some parties are against citing the results and demands of the UAE Consensus from Dubai, which includes concrete demands on technology, and point out that the tip should focus on the challenges of the technology mechanism. The negotiations will continue in Bonn and at the next COP in Belem, Brazil.
5. Outlook
In the coming months, the new round of NDCs, known as NDC 3.0, will be particularly interesting. By February 2025, all countries will be asked to submit their new national climate ambitions under the UNFCCC, thereby making their contribution to international climate protection tangible and traceable. The UK, the United Arab Emirates and Brazil as future COP presidency are leading the way in this regard. It is to be hoped that, in addition to all the promises and pledges, facts will be created at local level that will perhaps speak louder than some negotiation texts.