
Marian Feist, Senior Researcher at the Hertie School’s Centre for Sustainability, shares his insights from the recent UN climate summit.
The annual UN climate summits present a critical juncture in international efforts to address climate change, bringing together policymakers, negotiators and researchers to advance global climate governance. In this interview, Marian Feist, Senior Researcher at the Hertie School’s Centre for Sustainability, offers his perspective on the recent COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. With expertise in global environmental politics, including UN climate negotiations, diplomacy, and climate finance, Feist reflects on the key outcomes of the negotiations and their implications for international climate policy.
1. What was your overall impression of COP 29? Did it meet expectations?
Yes and no. Although COP 29 resulted in a significant agreement, many observers and negotiators from both developed and developing countries left disappointed. However, considering the subject matter and global context of the negotiations, the overall outcome falls broadly within the range of what could reasonably be expected.
2. What were the most significant outcomes from COP 29?
The key agreement was a new goal to mobilise at least 300 billion dollars annually by 2035 to support climate action in developing countries. The agreement also includes an additional aspiration to reach 1.3 trillion dollars in total with a broader understanding of what counts as funding. This is an increase from the previous goal of 100 billion dollars by 2020, originally set in 2009.
However, much like its predecessor, the new goal remains vague regarding the sources of these funds and the form they should take. Many developing countries criticised this lack of clarity. They had hoped for a more explicit pledge to make considerable grants from public funds available that would address their needs. Some developed countries, such as Germany, for their part, would have preferred a more formalised commitment from high-emitting emerging economies like China, which technically still count as developing countries under the UN climate convention. While the new goal does leave open the possibility of broadening the contributor base, high-emitting developing countries are merely invited to make voluntary contributions.
3. Were there any surprising breakthroughs?
No.
4. What gaps remain unaddressed after this year’s negotiations?
For one thing, it’s unclear what sources the money for the new climate goal will come from. The agreement allows for a wide variety of sources. How much of the 300 billion dollars, then, will come from public budgets versus leveraged private investments? Which countries will contribute in the end, and how much will they contribute? How much of the funding will be given as grants, loans or something else?
This lack of specificity is common in multilateral climate negotiations, where decision language is often vague by design. Substantive issues are then left to be addressed in the post-agreement phase. Some of these issues, particularly the aspiration to raise 1.3 trillion dollars, may be worked out in what negotiators are now calling the Baku to Belém Roadmap. (Editor’s note: Belém in Brazil is set to host next year’s COP 30 summit.)
As with the previous finance goal, the exact amount and composition of the financial support ultimately provided will only become clear retrospectively. But even if the goal were more precise, there is no enforcement mechanism to hold contributing countries accountable.
5. Were there any memorable moments during the proceedings?
There was, of course, the remarkable opening speech by Azerbaijan’s head of state, in which he, among other things, appeared to boast about the history of oil extraction in his country – a curious detail to highlight at a climate conference.
Another notable moment was when an Indian delegate criticised the COP presidency for adopting the new climate finance goal without giving countries proper opportunity to object, stating that they could not accept it. Nonetheless, by the end, the choice was essentially to take it or leave it. A more favourable agreement on climate finance at a later stage did not appear likely, particularly in light of the recent election outcome in the United States.
Views expressed by the interviewee may not necessarily reflect the views and values of the Hertie School.
If you are interested in discussing COP 29 outcomes further, check out our upcoming event with Dr Feist on 4 December: A look back on COP 29: Negotiating a new climate finance goal.
More about our expert
-
Marian Feist, Senior Research Fellow | Centre for Sustainability