COP Climate Summits are exhausting events. The stakes are high and most COPs fall well short of expectations. Many negotiators have devoted years to tackling climate change. They often go home feeling deep disappointment. COP29 was no exception, with a group of distinguished global figures arguing that COPs were no longer fit for purpose and should be reformed. They were not the first to say so. The science is clear on what is required to limit the rise of average global surface temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Each year it gets more challenging to achieve global Net Zero emission targets by 2050. More action is needed, and quickly, both at COPs and between them.
That said, most COPs see substantive progress. It is worth taking a second look a few weeks afterwards at the full range of COP activity; such reflection can lead to a recalibration. Negotiators and observers at COP26 were furious at the last-minute watering-down of language on “phasing out” coal to “phasing down” at the insistence of India and China. That feeling lingered, but the merits of the rest of the Glasgow Climate Pact were widely recognised.
Negative international headlines about COP29 outcomes were understandable, particularly on finance and the absence of language on transitioning away from fossil fuels. They also overshadowed important achievements. The first global climate summit in the Caspian region was a rare opportunity to showcase Central Asia and the South Caucasus, their circumstances, priorities and potential with the aim of attracting financial and technical support. Most countries rose to the occasion, recognising the benefits of regional collaboration on addressing shared climate challenges.
The Azerbaijan Presidency facilitated this process in Baku. World leaders, Ministers, international organisations and business worked on access to finance, energy transitions and updating country plans known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to reduce emissions by 2035. Several countries signed significant documents such as the Strategic Partnership Agreement between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan on the integration of their energy systems with an emphasis on renewables.
The region is severely affected by climate change and will need much international adaptation support. Tajikistan’s focus is on glacier melt, Kyrgyzstan’s on mountains and climate change. Caspian states signed a “Declaration on Strengthening Cooperation in Light of the Caspian Sea Water Decline”. The Caspian Policy Center and Uzbekistan’s Ecology Ministry held a roundtable on financing transboundary climate action in the region. The event presented recent research on Caspian Sea Basin Tipping Points, which showed how climate change, land use activities and other environmental factors had brought the Basin to the verge of a significant environmental shift. The panel of UK, Kazakh and international experts discussed a range of creative financial approaches.
The “Caspian COP” piqued the interest of visitors from around the world. Many were there for the first time and will have become aware of the region’s growing strategic significance. Caspian countries must make the most of this before agendas move on.
COP29’s achievements go well beyond the region. The Loss and Damage Fund became operational in Baku. Paris Agreement carbon market rules were finalised after nine years of work. This is a significant step, although the rules are likely to need some further tightening. There was also good technical progress on the Enhanced Transparency Framework and useful work on speeding up delivery of National Adaptation Plans.
Baku will nevertheless mostly be remembered for a new climate finance deal that fell far short of what developing countries need to reduce their emissions and cope with the consequences of climate change. The “Finance COP” was the first big chance in years to update donor countries’ financial commitments. In the first few days there was some optimism in speeches, meetings and side-events on creative multi-source funding, and a hope that this could be a global turning point.
Few were satisfied by the outcome. Developed countries’ budget constraints were real. Calls for them to find the bulk of the necessary $1.3 trillion per year were unrealistic. Was there ever a pathway to a more ambitious commitment than the $300 billion per year finally agreed? The Presidency thought not and closed the deal. We will never know whether giving India the floor in the final moments would have led to donors agreeing on a higher figure, or breakdown. The deal called for funding from multiple sources, but developing countries see the $300 billion as part-payment. There is a lot of work to be done in 2025 on the Baku to Belém Roadmap to make it clearer how the $1.3 trillion will be reached.
One step that could help to restore trust would be to explore ways to adjust commitments for inflation. Another should be to make sure that more donor climate finance badged as concessional is genuinely so, through greater use of grants or low-interest loans. Recent research using robust methodology developed by Oxfam has led to the conclusion that the “real value” of climate finance provided by donor countries in 2022 to developing countries was only about a third of the $100 billion target.
Baku will also be remembered for not reaffirming COP28 language on transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables due to the obstinacy of just one delegation. Most countries, including the UAE, supported reaffirmation and were deeply critical of Saudi Arabia’s blunt vetoes of references to fossil fuels – an approach widely seen as absurd for a climate change text. The accusations that they had been able to edit an official draft raised many questions and their approach to negotiations may affect how future Presidencies manage such interventions.
Despite having less time than usual to prepare for COP29, Azerbaijan planned the logistics meticulously and delivered a large and complex event. On the substance, COP29 President Mukhtar Babayev worked hard throughout the year and collaborated with stakeholders including previous and future presidencies. Azerbaijan and Brazil will need to work together closely to consolidate COP29’s achievements, tackle in Azerbaijan’s Presidency year what had not been possible in Baku and build momentum on priorities for 2025. These will include fostering an environment that encourages ambitious NDCs, support for adaptation planning and, inevitably, more clarity and progress on finance. The involvement of civil society is more crucial than ever. Azerbaijan’s work continues.
