The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29), held recently in Baku, Azerbaijan, has sparked significant concerns amid widespread criticisms of its outcomes, particularly concerning climate finance commitments. The conference, which had been touted as the ‘finance COP,’ aimed to raise at least $1 trillion annually for developing countries to manage the impacts of climate change. Yet, the final agreement revealed a much more modest commitment of just $300 billion per year by 2035, raising alarm bells about the ability of vulnerable nations to cope with environmental crises exacerbated by global warming.
The disparity between what is needed and what was promised became clear as participants recognized the severity of the climate crisis. According to reports, developing countries would require approximately $5.8 trillion by 2030 to meet their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. "The newly adopted sum is paltry compared to what is required," said India's representative at the conference, labeling the $300 billion figure as “abysmally poor” and as little more than an “optical illusion.”
This discontent is palpable among nations already grappling with the dire realities of climate change. Regions such as Southeast Asia and small island nations have been particularly hard hit, facing extreme weather events — from devastating typhoons to prolonged droughts — exacerbated by climate change. The Indian delegation’s frustration reflected broader sentiments, as many developing nations criticized the final agreement for failing to deliver ‘concrete plans to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C’ and for offering no dedicated financing solutions for loss and damage incurred due to climate impacts.
Critics, including advocacy groups such as the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group, expressed outrage, describing the COP29 outcomes as “a betrayal” of the world’s most vulnerable populations. “We leave Baku without the comprehensive support desperately needed for adaptation and loss and damage,” the group stated, illustrating the depth of disappointment felt across the negotiations. Concerns were heightened by the potential reliance on loans from multilateral development banks, which critics argue could deepen the debt crisis of poorer nations burdened by existing financial obligations.
Meanwhile, the controversial influence of fossil fuel lobbyists during the COP29 proceedings raised questions about the integrity of the negotiations. Delegates and advocates have documented instances where the voices of indigenous communities and civil society were drowned out by the powerful oil and gas industry. Reports have emerged labeling COP29 as having regressed on the commitments established at COP28. “The fossil fuel industry thrives, but this poses severe risks for billions suffering from climate impacts,” lamented Attracta Mooney from the Financial Times. “Rich nations must stop imposing loans on the poorest who have done the least to contribute to the crisis.”
Despite the disappointing financial commitments, there were glimmers of hope; local initiatives across developing nations are driving community-led changes. For example, mangrove restoration projects and flood-resilient urban designs have showcased ways forward even amid funding constraints. The Philippines stands out with its recent appointment as the host for the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage Board, representing regional efforts to secure leadership on these pressing issues. The legitimacy of regional strategies highlights the necessity for global support to amplify their impact.
Notably, COP29 also witnessed the establishment of standards for carbon trading under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which could open doors for significant climate finance opportunities. By seeking to rectify past greenwashing instances and reinforce integrity within carbon markets, negotiators aim to create pathways toward equitable investments for developing nations. Nonetheless, concerns linger about the ability to maintain effective monitoring and governance within this new carbon market framework.
Even with such advancements, the central questions remain: Will enough be done to transform the commitments and frameworks discussed at COP29, and how will developed nations respond to calls for action? The time for empty promises is over; health and sustainable development must be at the forefront of climate strategies moving forward, rather than as secondary interests marginalized by power dynamics favoring fossil fuel interests.
Looking to COP30, the stakes are higher than ever. With the health of our planet and its people hanging precariously, the need for radical change becomes increasingly urgent. If the COP process is to regain credibility, the focus must shift decisively toward phasing out fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy solutions, alongside ensuring predictable and sufficient climate finance for vulnerable communities. The importance of keeping health intertwined with climate action cannot be overstated, as these social determinants stand at the very core of humanity’s survival under increasingly challenging conditions.
The road from COP29 to COP30 will be marked by challenges, but the global community's response to these outcomes will determine not only the fate of climate negotiations but the survival of ecosystems and communities impacted by climate change. With leaders from developed and developing nations alike called to account, the narrative surrounding climate negotiations must evolve from rhetoric to action, ensuring justice is served for those on the front lines of climate change.
