Someone is not supposed to pay to help developing countries

Climate finance for the developing world – the last day of the COP29 conference: a loud protest against climate change in the world’s most vulnerable countries

At around 3 am on Sunday morning, in a drained plenary, the gavel slammed to bring COP29 to a close. The conclusion of the Conference of the Parties was greeted with applause at the end of the last day of the conference. It gave way, immediately, to discontent.

The text requires developed countries to put money into climate finance for the developing world by a certain date. The grander target that was brought to the conference is still in the text, but it is less than an invitation.

The final day was marked by drafts, huddles and bitter disagreements behind closed doors after negotiators had failed to reach a deal in the main hall. The door to room 3 was opened suddenly at 4 pm. The delegates from the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change marched in front of the photographers and reporters, protesting that they were not being heard.

The Road Map to COP30: Where will the money come from? Argentina, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and the United States are concerned about the lack of climate finance

The document does not resolve who the money will come from. Governments? Private finance? The vagueness is intentional. Clarification will hopefully come in a road map (dubbed the “Baku to Belém Road Map to 1.3T”) that is being created in the lead-up to COP30 next year, which will take place in Brazil. The coming months will see a commitment to clarify everything.

Importantly, China, which is still considered a developing country under the 1992 agreements that govern climate action, has not had its status changed, meaning that it is not obliged to help with climate financing. It has long been called upon to contribute through the COP process, on the basis that it leads the world in aggregate emissions and is the world’s second-largest economy. China is going to make a voluntary contribution using the COP system but this won’t result in an obligation to do so.

“The finance outcome for Baku was deeply disappointing,” says Dipak Dasgupta, an economist at The Energy and Resources think-tank in New Delhi, and a lead author on climate finance for reports assembled by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

But delegates from some of the largest developing countries, including India, Indonesia and Nigeria were furious. Some alleged that they had been pressured into a deal, so that the COP meeting did not end in failure. The meeting also did not agree how much of the $300 billion is to be in grants versus loans, nor how much will come from private or public-sector sources.

“The pledge of $300 billion a year by 2035 will not convince anyone that we will get to $1.3 trillion a year needed by developing countries to respond to the climate emergency,” says Sarah Colenbrander, head of climate and sustainability at ODI Global.

“While snatching this COP back from the flames deserves momentary celebration, getting here also exposed old wounds between wealthier and poorer nations,” notes Clare Shakya, head of climate at The Nature Conservancy, an international conservation organization headquartered in Arlington, Virginia, in the United States.

The amount that was agreed does not include a scenario in which the US withdraws its climate funding if there is a Trump administration.

COP delegates also agreed that a finance “road map” document will be prepared ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil. This would show how countries will achieve the higher climate finance target.

The road map of the Baku to Belém is important because of the practical science that needs to be done. It needs careful nurturing, and not a wrecking ball.”