UN climate summits turning dubious deepen crisis

The COP29 climate conference, hosted in Baku, concluded with palpable disappointment as developed nations committed to mobilising only $300 billion annually for climate action in developing countries.

While this marks an increase from the previous $100 billion pledge, it falls far short of the estimated $1 trillion needed annually to effectively combat climate change. The funding, moreover, will not be available until 2035, leaving immediate needs unmet at a time when climate impacts are accelerating worldwide.

This disappointing outcome exemplifies a larger pattern that has emerged over the past several years with the annual climate summits consistently failing to deliver on their ambitious goals. The gap between these summits’ promises and the urgent actions required to meet the targets of the 2015 Paris Agreement has become glaring.

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) emissions gap report released just before the COP29 meet, global emissions reached a record-high 57.1 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) in 2023, an increase of 1.3% from 2022. To have a realistic chance of achieving the 1.5 degree Celsius target, global emissions must be reduced by 42% by 2030 and 57% by 2035 from 2019 levels. This now looks impossible to achieve. The report said even under the best scenario, full implementation of both unconditional and conditional Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) would only reduce expected emissions in 2030 by 10%, leading to predictions of up to 2.6 degrees of warming.

This limited progress brings to the fore challenges facing the international community and raises questions about the effectiveness of existing frameworks. The core issues with climate negotiations stem from an imbalance in responsibility and commitment. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established in 1994, was built on the “polluter pays” principle, acknowledging the disproportionate historical emissions of developed nations. These countries, including the United States and many European nations, were tasked not only with reducing their emissions but also with providing financial and technological support to developing countries.

This framework aimed to address historical inequities, holding developed nations accountable for the bulk of emissions over the past 150 years. Yet, such principles of fairness are seldom the driving force behind international relations. The introduction of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 marked a significant step in operationalising the UNFCCC by imposing binding emission reduction targets on developed nations. However, the Protocol’s impact was diluted when the United States, despite playing a pivotal role in drafting it, refused to ratify the agreement. The Protocol’s failure to secure universal commitment signaled the beginning of a gradual weakening of the climate governance framework.

The Copenhagen summit in 2009 was an early attempt to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new framework that could address the limitations of binding commitments. However, the Copenhagen summit failed to reach a consensus. The 2015 Paris Agreement marked a significant shift by requiring all nations, regardless of development status, to submit self-determined emission reduction targets, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). This shift diluted the accountability of developed nations and eliminated the binding targets that had previously been in place.

Under the Paris Agreement, while some progress has been made, the gap between action and necessity remains stark. This dilution of responsibilities has extended to climate finance, an area that has seen considerable tension in recent years. Historically, developed nations were solely responsible for mobilising funds and transferring technology to assist developing countries. Yet, in recent negotiations, pressure has mounted to broaden the contributor base to include emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia.

Although the Paris Agreement sought to integrate this idea, it did not achieve consensus. In Baku, developed nations pushed for a broader financial responsibility, but developing nations, led by China, resisted, arguing that emerging economies should not be held to the same standards as wealthier nations with a greater historical carbon footprint.

Despite these challenges, the UNFCCC remains the only forum where even the smallest and most vulnerable nations, like Panama and the Marshall Islands, can voice their concerns and seek support. For these nations, climate finance, even if insufficient, is crucial for adaptation and survival.

However, the recurring inadequacies of these meetings cast doubt on the long-term viability of the UNFCCC as a mechanism to drive effective action.

Panama’s head of delegation Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez was extremely vocal during COP29 talks saying, “Why should countries like Panama bear the burden of loans to cover $250 million in losses from torrential rains this past month or $1 billion in lost revenue from the Panama Canal due to droughts? Why should any developing country finance adaptation measures with loans while others profit from our suffering? We are told the $1.3 trillion proposal from developing nations is ‘extreme’. But what’s truly extreme is spending $2.5 trillion on wars or $7 trillion on fossil fuel subsidies while failing to commit even a fraction of that to save lives,” Gomez said responding to the failure of developed countries to provide adequate climate finance in the form of grants.

Earlier this year, about 300 Gunas – indigenous families on Gardi Sugdub, a tiny island off Panama’s Caribbean coast had to leave their homes. The Gunas of Gardi Sugdub are the first of 63 communities along Panama’s Caribbean and Pacific coasts that government officials and scientists expect to be forced to relocate by rising sea levels in the coming years.

Tina Stege, Marshall Islands Climate Envoy, said: “We came in good faith, with the safety of our communities and the well-being of the world at heart. Yet, we have seen the very worst of political opportunism here at this COP29, playing games with the lives of the world’s most vulnerable people. Despite the barriers, we have fought hard and secured something for our communities. We are leaving with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need.”

Aarti Khosla, director of New-Delhi based think tank Climate Trends, said: “Baku has given a deal but kept no one happy, everyone has stayed in to retain the spirit of multilateralism.”

Sunita Narain, director general, Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), said: “At COP29, we lost an opportunity — without a meaningful agreement on climate finance; both in terms of quantity and quality, large parts of the world that would have had the chance to reinvent growth to make it low-carbon intensive, will not be able to do so. What’s worse, this comes at a time when these countries are even more vulnerable due to climate change impacts.”

During the closing plenary of COP29, Chandni Raina, adviser to the Department of Economic Affairs and part of India’s negotiating team, was the voice of the Global South who termed the $300 billion finance commitment “abysmally poor” and paltry compared to the estimated $1.3 trillion required annually until 2030 for effective climate action.

Meanwhile, a group of prominent global leaders, including former secretary general of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon wrote an open letter calling for urgent reforms to the COP under the UNFCCC. They argue that the current structure of COP meetings is insufficient to meet the 1.5 degree target needed for planetary stability. The proposed reforms include stringent eligibility criteria for COP presidencies to ensure alignment with climate goals, and transforming COP meetings into smaller, more frequent, action-oriented sessions that prioritise progress and solutions. They also called for greater transparency to curb the disproportionate influence of corporate interests, ensuring fair representation from vulnerable communities and scientific institutions.

Experts fear that with insufficient finance flow, countries may submit weak NDCs which are due in February next year.