-
Last updated on

The climate summit on climate finance will take place in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan (© Getty Images).
The primary aim of the World Climate Summit being held in Baku, Azerbaijan – from 11 to 22 November 2024 – is to reach agreement on the subject of climate funding for developing countries. Opinions on that topic are highly polarised, however. That is why Belgium and the EU are maintaining open discussions with all parties in order to break through the deadlock.
This year has not been short of ominous news either, from countries both near and far, including the huge water bomb over Eastern Europe, raging forest fires in Bolivia and Brazil, extreme floods in the Moroccan desert, abundant rainfall in West and Central Africa and an exceptionally long heat wave in Antarctica and so on.
You may also be thinking that the transition to more renewable energy and the introduction of fundamental changes in response to our changing climate are proving rather difficult. Yet despite this, the national climate delegations – including Belgium's own climate delegation – are still steadily working in the background in order to put the Paris Agreement on climate change into practice.
New Collective Quantified Goal
The previous climate summit in Dubai – the COP28 – can be regarded as a success. After all, it concluded by setting clear objectives that enabled the much-needed energy transition to be put into action and allowed us to adapt ourselves as effectively as possible to the disruption of our climate. Today, what we still need to do is to figure out is how we are going to accomplish that and first and foremost where the money is going to come from.
And that is precisely what will be discussed at the next climate summit – the COP29 – that is due to take place in Baku, Azerbaijan, from 11 to 22 November 2024. At that particular summit, all countries will need to reach agreement on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), a new quantitative collective objective concerning climate funding. What is it all about? What are the sticking points? Once again, we had the opportunity to hear what Ulrik Lenaerts (FPS Foreign Affairs), the deputy head of the Belgian climate delegation, had to say about this.
Climate funding totalling 100 billion dollars
In the Paris Agreement on climate change – and even as long ago as the Copenhagen summit in 2009 – it had already been agreed that rich countries would set aside $100 billion a year in order to assist developing countries. But that proved more difficult than planned. At the COP26 in Glasgow (in 2021), it turned out that by 2019, only about $80 billion had been raised. This year, the OECD – which does the calculations – announced some more hopeful news. In 2022, the total amount of climate funding raised was $115.9 billion, in other words, more than had been agreed upon.
But that certainly isn't the end of the matter! In 2009, discussions had been based on an extremely incomplete estimate of the investments that would be needed in order to limit global warming to 2°C. Moreover, the objectives have been tightened in the meantime and our latest intention is to restrict global warming to only 1.5°C. As a result, we will need to be completely climate-neutral no later than 2050, which means that our entire energy system will need to undergo modifications. That will therefore entail (1) massive investments in renewable energy, (2) significantly reducing emissions from our homes and transport systems and (3) adapting our infrastructure in response to climate disruption.
What is more, the amount of funding made available will need to take account of inflation and the Paris Agreement of 2015 already stipulated that we should review the climate funding situation in 2025. It is this review that will now form the first item on the agenda of the COP in Baku.

Firefighters use a boat to rescue people from flooded areas in the Czech Republic (September 2024) (© Shutterstock).
Over half of the funding is made up of loans
Incidentally, it is now clear that not everyone is equally satisfied with all of the elements being included in the category of climate funding. That being said, the OECD itself applies fairly strict conditions. Only funding that is used very directly for climate action can be included. But the OECD itself relies on figures reported by the donor countries themselves, and in many cases, the amounts reported include loans. As a result, over half of climate funding is made up of loans on which the receiving countries will have to pay interest.
That, in itself, is a situation that NGOs and developing countries believe ought not to be allowed. In their opinion, the climate funding provided should not saddle those countries with an additional burden of debt. For its part, Belgium's approach in this regard can be regarded as exemplary. Almost all of the climate funding our country makes available takes the form of donations, except for a small amount of investments made by BIO, the Belgian Investment Company for Developing Countries.
$2.4 trillion to meet the needs
That still leaves the biggest challenge of all. Calculations by the independent High Level Expert Group on Climate Finance found that the actual investment needs are much greater, namely, $2.4 trillion a year, that is, $2,400 billion, by 2030!
Is that an unfeasible amount? No, it isn't, provided that all of the amounts invested – both public and private – are directed towards climate needs. After all, the amounts concerned involve investments in infrastructure (1) to provide renewable energy and (2) to deal with expected climate extremes.
Whatever the situation, all countries are required to invest in energy supplies for their people, in resilient food supplies and so on. So the amount they would have invested in fossil energy can now be used to fund climate-neutral alternatives. This need not give rise to any major additional expenditure and will actually offer numerous benefits over time, in areas including health and employment.
In any case, these investments will also primarily be made by the private sector, which, in doing so, will seek to achieve a return on investment. It is therefore certain that not all of those $2.4 trillion will take the form of public money, but will instead be provided from a diverse range of funding sources.
Two camps
The task at the COP29 in Baku will be to resolve the vexed question of climate funding: what amount will we be aiming to achieve from 2025 onwards? With a few exceptions, the vast majority of countries genuinely want to come up with ambitious climate plans and also wish to ensure that funding is forthcoming to make those plans possible. The only thing is, however, that positions are polarised on how to make that happen.
We have observed that countries have aligned themselves into two main camps that are adhering pretty strictly to their vision: the rich, industrialised countries on one hand, and the ‘developing countries’ – which also include the emerging economies – on the other. Each of those two groups is now set in its perception of what the other one wants.
Multi-layered versus public
For example, the developing countries insist that there must first be an agreement on a new amount of climate funding from 2025 onwards and that this should mainly consist of public subsidies. The starting point for them is that investment needs must, to the greatest extent possible, be met in the form of public funding from rich countries. That would dramatically scale up international funding to a multiple of the current $100 billion. Attracting more private-sector funding is something that they would prefer to discuss at a later date.
The rich countries, on the other hand, prefer to address the various layers of funding at the same time. Alongside the funding from public sources, this would also include the hundreds of billions that will be needed to achieve climate neutrality: more renewable energy, higher energy efficiency and so on.
A large portion of that amount will need to come from the private sector. To make those investments attractive, however, a healthier investment environment characterised by reasonable, not excessively high interest rates, amongst other things, still needs to be created in developing countries.
But other sources can certainly still be utilised. These can include input from development banks, domestic investment, levies on international shipping and aviation, pushing international monetary institutions to take more climate action and cancelling foreign debt of developing countries in exchange for climate action carried out by the developing countries themselves.
Keeping discussions going
The rich countries feel that this multi-layered approach will potentially achieve a much greater impact, given that the actual needs amount to $2.4 trillion. But developing countries fear that adopting that approach will enable rich countries to shirk their responsibility to help poor countries combat climate disruption that those countries themselves have played hardly any part in creating – and that rich countries are seeking to pass on that responsibility to the private sector, among others.
What is more, developing countries want to see separate amounts earmarked for the different categories: adaptation, loss and damage, mitigation (limiting emissions) and so on. The EU, however, is of the opinion that this cannot be done in such an unambiguous way. Indeed, the categories cannot always be sharply defined and do not help to mobilise further investment.
Whatever the situation may be, Belgium has done and is doing everything in its power to keep discussions going with all delegations – including during the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU. Remaining completely transparent at all times in order to clear up misunderstandings and explaining the multi-layered vision in all its nuances, based on in-depth analyses of what we need to bring about the energy transition, etc. are the only ways to break through the deadlock that has arisen.
Expanding the range of donor countries
Another sticking point concerns which countries should contribute. Initially, the donors were mainly OECD member states, the so-called ‘club of rich countries’. But the world has evolved in the meantime! If we look at the figures representing the average GDP per capita, some of the Gulf States are nowadays richer than many European countries. The principle of ‘the polluter pays’ also applies, which means that those countries with high emissions – including the petroleum-producing countries themselves – will also have to come up with a sizeable contribution. The rich countries consequently believe that about 10 additional rich countries – including the Gulf States – should also donate.
Though the United Arab Emirates – a Gulf State –are already making a nice contribution towards the loss and damage fund and China is also investing heavily abroad, expanding the list of donor countries would actually increase climate funding by 20 to 25%! The only thing is that the developing countries en bloc do not want to discuss expanding the list of donor countries.
One potential way out is by not imposing obligations on specific, named countries, but by simply stating that countries that possess the wealth to do so should contribute extra – in line with the principle of ‘the polluter pays’. That may impose indirect pressure on those countries.
Other points
If the COP29 successfully achieves a breakthrough in the area of climate funding, it can certainly be deemed a success. But other items will also be on the agenda as well. For example, the summit should send a clear signal that all countries must submit their renewed – increased – national climate plans for the period beyond 2030 – in 2025. Next year's COP30 in Belém, Brazil will then chart all of the plans that have been made.
Countries will also be encouraged to submit their first Biennial Transparency Report before the end of this year. In it, they must discuss their progress in reducing their emissions. Transparency forms one of the essential pillars of the Paris Agreement on climate change because it ensures mutual trust.
We will also work on indicators to measure adaptation and also on how, in highly specific terms, the objectives of the COP28 in Dubai will be achieved in reality. Greater clarity will also be needed with regard to where the financing of the loss and damage fund is going to come from. Article 6 – a market mechanism that allows the reduction of carbon emissions to be traded as a ‘carbon credit’ – also requires further clarification. Small countries – including island states – ought to be given improved access to climate funding. And so on.
The Belgian delegation
The two weeks of the summit will definitely be an extremely busy time again, but whatever may happen, Belgium's climate delegation is at the ready – as it always is. There is also considerable interest in this year's conference within Belgium's private sector and amongst its research institutions, NGOs, etc. The Belgian Development Agency Enabel will also be there.
The presence of all these players will give an impetus to negotiators to put their best food forward and to aspire to put in place ambitious climate plans. Hopefully, many difficult issues will be resolved once and for all. We will report on the results of the meeting in January.
The EU is sticking to its climate ambitions
Concessions to protesting farmers, a somewhat watered-down nature restoration law and so on are giving onlookers the impression that the EU is backtracking on its ambitious Green Deal. Nothing could be further from the truth, says Lenaerts. 'The Belgian Presidency even managed to fully complete the Fit for 55 package – the concrete plan for a green transition – which in particular includes new emissions standards for heavy vehicles and the certification of carbon removal. The climate objectives have therefore been embedded in legislation and remain intact. That therefore involves climate neutrality by 2050. The only difference is that increased attention will now be directed towards ways in which the competitiveness of Europe's industry can be underpinned.’
The new European Commission that is soon to take office also includes a number of experienced and highly motivated commissioners who are fully behind the Green Deal. 'Teresa Ribera – "a clean and competitive transition" – is a heavyweight when it comes to climate ambition and has been very active in that area in Spain. Wopke Hoekstra – 'climate and clean growth' – from the Netherlands was a member of the previous Commission and has already proven his ability to firmly lead the way. And the Dane Dan Jørgensen – 'energy' – is also an adept climate negotiator.’
Having put in place its Fit for 55 package, the EU has already established its renewed national plan, well in advance of the COP30 in Belém. This sends a powerful signal to markets and investors, as well as other international partners, that they should raise their ambition in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
Just a few more figures. Of the 116 billion of climate funding in 2022, the EU and its Member States provided $28.5 billion. As recently as 2022, the EU was already emitting 32.5% less greenhouse gases than in 1990. That figure will need to increase to at least 55% by 2030.
More on Planet

EU puts full weight behind UN agreement on protecting marine biodiversity
In the context of the Belgian EU Presidency, a colleague from our FPS chaired the EU Working Party on the Law of the Sea (COMAR)...

COP28: 'historic consensus is just the beginning of the road' – 12 QUESTIONS
In 12 questions, we will take you behind the scenes of a pretty successful climate summit in Dubai.

Children have their climate summit too!
UNICEF Belgium organised the first-ever national Children's Climate Summit. Because the climate crisis is just as much a childre...