-
Last updated on

The venue of the COP29 in Baku (© UN Climate Change/Habib Samadov).
At the very last minute, the COP29 climate summit did, in fact, deliver: the pledge, by donor countries, to contribute at least 300 billion euros by 2035, as well as a market mechanism for carbon credits. But the negotiations themselves were extremely difficult. We will now provide you with a look behind the scenes.
Every year, the UN climate summit is a highlight of the international climate negotiations and that was also true in the case of the COP29, which took place in Baku, Azerbaijan, from 11 to 22 November last year. For the FPS Foreign Affairs therefore, this also meant all hands on deck. At the COP29 summit, two members of staff from the FPS were involved in negotiations as part of the Belgian climate delegation and our Special Envoy for Climate & Environment was also in attendance. And needless to say, our embassy in Azerbaijan managed the presence of all those Belgians, including ministers, journalists, representatives from companies and NGOs, superbly.
Last year, we reported that this summit was promising to be a difficult one and that expectation proved to be completely true. We asked our colleague Ulrik Lenaerts – the deputy leader of the Belgian climate delegation – what was really going on and his account of events is what we have set out below.
Two camps with polarised views
Views were highly polarised due to the fact that two separate camps formed.
To begin with, the G77 – the informal group of ‘developing countries’ – had coalesced into a single bloc with encouragement from the hardliners in the group led mainly by a number of oil-producing countries and Gulf states. They sank their teeth into the funding target and wanted to avoid new energy transition targets.
Calculations carried out by the UN showed that $2.4 trillion – or $2,400 billion – would be needed in developing countries by 2030 in order to pay for the energy transition and fund efforts to increase resilience in the face of climate extremes. Subtract domestic funding sources from that and you arrive at a figure of $1,300 billion that the G77 was demanding from donor countries in the form of public money.
Donor countries were willing to go far, but were often tight on funds and felt that other sources of funding should be considered. Their own calculation came to a much lower figure: $220 billion to $250 billion, with an upper limit of $300 billion. Moreover, the amount encompasses a whole range of funding sources:
- Gifts and loans from one country to another;
- Funding from multilateral institutions (Green Climate Fund, Least Developing Countries Fund, etc.);
- Credit guarantees, by governments, of investments in developing countries (such as Credendo, in the case of Belgium);
- Investments by the multilateral development banks (‘MDBs’), such as the World Bank and the regional development banks.
The MDBs in particular weighed in on this because they can gradually scale up their current contribution of $60 billion to $120 billion by 2030 and $180 billion by 2035.
The donor countries intended to derive the funding shortfall from additional ‘mobilised private finance’ (encouraged by the government) and from purely private investment flows.
These two camps continued to exist throughout the climate summit as a whole. Amongst other things, the donor countries also wanted to discuss the targets (such as the tripling in renewable energy) agreed upon at the COP28 in Dubai, but the G77 stuck to the funding target and did not wish to work on new textual proposals. As a result, the first week of the summit was largely wasted.
A Presidency that focused on the hardliners and on donor countries
It is not uncommon for countries to take polarised positions during climate negotiations. When that occurs, it is then a matter of giving more space to the countries potentially situated in the middle. The G77 is not a homogeneous group; many of its members are actually bridge-builders. Examples of those include the least developed countries, the small island states, and Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Kenya, etc.
One of the tasks of the Presidency is to invite those progressive countries in the middle for discussions and, as such, to create a coalition of the willing. But at the COP29 climate summit, the Azerbaijani Presidency mainly directed attention towards the most vocal hardliners and to the donor countries, in other words, to the two camps themselves.
Significant frustration amongst the bridge-builders
In the final phase of the summit, this situation led to considerable frustration amongst the bridge-builders. They already felt like they had been taken in tow by the hard-line voices within the G77 – who did not want concessions – and they also got hardly any say in the negotiations due to the less-than-transparent attitude of the Presidency and the facilitators. Incidentally, the donor countries were so preoccupied with mutual consultation – as a means of arriving at a common, substantiated position vis-à-vis the G77 – that they also had insufficient dialogue with the middle group.
A moment of crisis that led to a way out
By the end of the summit, the situation was so tense that the least developed countries and small island states wanted out of the negotiations. That led a group around Colombia and Kenya, as well as the small island states, to come up with a compromise proposal that made it to the finish line.
After the agreement had been adopted, the responses from India ("it’s an optical illusion") and Nigeria ("it's a joke") were rather brusque – and corresponding images were published in the press. Both countries were mainly venting their frustration at the way in which the summit had been conducted and about the fact that some countries had not been heard sufficiently. The ‘optical illusion’ refers to the fact that the agreed amount also includes, among other things, the contributions of the MDBs.

Children had their say extensively during the COP29 (© UN Climate Change/Kamran Guliyev).
A compromise around climate funding
Donor countries promise to provide at least $300 billion in climate funding by 2035, which means there is no ceiling or upper limit. That amount includes various sources of funding, but clear figures were agreed upon. For example, the investments by the Green Climate Fund and the Least Developing Countries Fund investments are set to triple. The predetermined amount will be reviewed in 2028 and 2030.
Moreover, there is a target to reach $1,300 billion by 2035 through other means. A road map will be drawn up in 2025, which will immediately form one of the priorities for the COP30 in Belém under the Presidency of Brazil.
There was no breakthrough with regard to which emerging countries – still officially designated as developing countries – will act as donors. They will be encouraged to contribute, however, and their contributions to the multilateral development banks will count.
A market mechanism for carbon credits
From now on, there are crystal clear rules for trading in carbon credits. If a project produces additional reductions in greenhouse gases, these can be bought up as carbon credits by private companies seeking to become climate neutral. These carbon credits will receive official UN status.
In specific terms, a country or a company that fails to reduce its emissions enough to become climate neutral can compensate for that by investing in reforestation projects in Africa, for example. This in turn generates additional funding for climate action.
The Dubai COP28 guidelines remain in place
The EU had hoped to make the strong guidelines from the COP28 more specific at the COP29, such as with regard to the move away from fossil fuels, the tripling of the amount of renewable energy and the halving of the deadline by which energy efficiency is to be achieved. Increasing the uptake of renewable energy, for example, will only succeed if a sufficient number of high-voltage power lines are available, in addition to storage capacity in the form of batteries and the like. That is something that still requires further elaboration.
However, the COP29 did not manage to bring about any progress on that whatsoever. References to human rights also failed to make the finish line, but that does not prevent those guidelines remaining in place.
The stringent targets for adaptation to climate disruption were in fact confirmed, however. The working programme on gender equity within the climate transition was extended and a number of additional steps were taken with regard to the climate loss and damage fund.
Belgium and the EU are somewhat satisfied after all
Belgium and the EU had hoped for much more, but are still moderately satisfied with the final outcome, especially since the worst-case scenario – a summit without agreement – was ultimately avoided. This would have significantly complicated the next step, especially the revision of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs).
Indeed, by the first half of 2025, all countries must implement more stringent plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The absence of clear climate funding would have made developing countries reluctant to increase their efforts. As a result of a so-called domino effect, that might even have discouraged the EU, which is known for its ambitious approach towards combating climate change. We did lose a year however in our endeavour to make the COP28 guidelines more concrete.

During COP29, Brazil already announced COP30 (© UN Climate Change/Kamran Guliyev).
2025 will once again be a crucial year, with Brazil at the helm
In 2025, Brazil will host the COP30 in Belém. Although that country is firmly embedded within the G77 camp, it still wants to achieve an ambitious climate summit. The following will be on the agenda, as a minimum:
- The synthesis report of all the renewed national contributions will show the extent to which they will be sufficient to limit global warming. There is very little chance that the new national targets will be enough to achieve the target of 1.5°C. What political signal are we sending so that we can still close the gap leading up to 1.5°C so that we can keep global warming below 2°C?
- The road map towards $1,300 billion in climate funding still needs further work. Which players can contribute? How will we mobilise more private-sector funding?
- The global objective with regard to climate adaptation needs to be finalised, including by formulating indicators. This relates to the steep targets set by the COP28 (and to be achieved by 2030) with regard to water, food security, biodiversity, health, infrastructure, poverty and cultural heritage, among others. The adaptation cycle – monitoring and forecasting the impact of climate disruption, early warning, appropriate action, etc. – needs to be made more robust and should be operational in all countries by 2030.
- Brazil intends to configure its COP30 climate summit around the topic of protecting ecosystems. This means that tropical forests and oceans will be high on the agenda. The summit will also seek to identify more synergies with UN conventions on desertification and biodiversity.
A large-scale climate summit is still more than useful
Although the host country Azerbaijan should have involved the middle group more extensively during the negotiations, it actually organised an excellent climate summit. The conference building looked magnificent and the many student volunteers were very friendly and helpful.
More than 55,000 people took part in the summit. Numerous events involving civil society took place and children were widely featured. Those attending were also able to view a variety of booths and on the fringes of the negotiations themselves, massive numbers of round tables, side events and high-level forums took place. The topics under discussion ranged from the use of bamboo and South-South cooperation to the need to achieve a cleaner fashion industry. In short, climate summits have become a kind of world expo on climate.
And that is definitely a positive thing! For the negotiators, this coming together of representatives from all parts of society – all of whom are concerned about our climate – creates a stimulating environment in which to reach a solution. Opportunities to hold discussions and share opinions are also plentiful.
This would not be possible to the same extent if the negotiations took place in a back room at the UN in Geneva or New York, without any public visibility and without coming face to face with the feelings of those involved.
Conclusion: the main reason for the difficulties during the COP29 had to do with a tactical issue
The fact that the tense geopolitical context in the world affects climate negotiations is to be expected, of course. For example, communication between China and the US is not going very smoothly, and some resentment remains among developing countries concerning the handling of the coronavirus crisis, increased food prices and similar issues.
Nevertheless, the main reason for the difficulties during the climate summit involved a tactical issue. The G77 wanted to keep the ranks closed and the donor countries wanted to adopt a well-coordinated position between themselves. But progress was made, nonetheless.
We must now wait and see what the impact will be after Donald Trump takes office as US president in 2025. In any case, a very large number of items are on the climate agenda again.
More on Planet

COP16 biodiversity: remarkable results and re-examination for funding
The COP16 on biodiversity has been able to present some notable outcomes, such as the closer involvement of indigenous peoples a...

COP29: climate funding on which all can agree
The primary aim of the World Climate Summit being held in Baku, Azerbaijan – from 11 to 22 November 2024 – is to reach agreement...

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)...