At the COP29 climate summit, the urgent matter of financing to tackle climate loss and damage looms large as delegates from around the world scramble to draw commitments from wealthier nations. With rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and ecosystem degradation posing serious threats, developing nations find themselves at the forefront of climate impacts, calling for immediate and substantial financial support.
Simon Stiell, Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, emphasized at the conference's opening, “An ambitious new climate finance goal should be the priority of every nation at this round of international climate negotiations.” The discussions, which had already entered their second week, were framed around the need for funds to facilitate the global shift toward clean energy and support vulnerable communities impacted by climate disasters.
Standing on this international stage, Bangladesh took the opportunity to forcefully advocate for climate justice, spotlighting its dire climate crisis and pushing back against the hesitance of wealthier nations to commit to substantial climate funding. Syeda Rizwana Hasan, Advisor to Bangladesh’s Ministry of Environment, highlighted the need for $1.3 trillion to be mobilized for adaptation and loss and damage at the end of the negotiations. Without satisfactory climate finance, countries like Bangladesh—arguably among the world’s most climate-vulnerable—are left to face the devastating consequences with little to no resources.
Hasan’s plea came amid increasing concerns over the financing framework set out under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) established at previous summits. An adaptation fund gap report released prior to COP29 noted Bangladesh requires $8.5 billion annually for climate adaptation, leaving them with significant unmet needs.
While some wealthier nations attempted to offer funding, many developing countries expressed skepticism. Munjurul Hannan Khan, who runs the NGO Nature Conservation Management from Bangladesh, remarked, “The multinational banks are eyeing to make more profit from projects in the name of climate funding,” questioning the motives behind the financial offers.
Further complicicating matters, New Zealand announced at COP29 it would provide $10 million to the loss and damage fund, part of its broader $1.3 billion commitment for climate finance from 2022 through 2025. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts underscored the urgency of these contributions, stating, “We want this global fund to deliver effective support to the people in the most affected and vulnerable regions so they can recover from the impacts of climate change and build stronger, more resilient communities.”
The $10 million pledge, though welcomed, drew critiques for being inadequate compared to the overwhelming challenges facing nations impacted daily by climate change. Adam Currie from the climate advocacy group 350 Aotearoa noted, “Today's announcement is half of what New Zealand announced last year,” drawing attention to the fact these funds are not new but redirected from existing commitments.
On the ground, the sentiments of frustration echoed loudly. Countries like Pakistan, which suffered severe floods last year, are seeing firsthand the consequences of slow funding processes linked to climate aid. Syed Murad Ali Shah, Chief Minister of Sindh province, expressed the need for streamlined, quick disbursement of climate funds, stating, “If somebody's house is damaged, they should not have to wait five years for the world to help them.”
The Loss and Damage Fund established during COP27 was intended to support nations grappling with irreversible climate impacts, yet as Shah pointed out, stringent red tapes hinder immediate aid. The truth remains—when catastrophic events occur, those affected require timely assistance to rebuild and adapt.
Aiming to bypass bureaucratic hurdles, Pakistan's response to the floods integrated community engagement to rebuild homes—an approach Shah argued contributed significantly to their successes. Pakistan managed to secure about $2 billion through transparent housing projects, demonstrating how community-oriented strategies can yield results without excessive red tape.
Even with tangible steps taken by countries like Pakistan, the broader scope of climate finance reflects persistent issues. Loss and damage costs may escalate to $447-$894 billion annually by the year 2030 for developing nations, exacerbated by slow-onset impacts such as desertification and rising sea levels.
The prospect of mobilizing significant funding remains highly contested. While developed countries tentatively plan to discuss replacement funding schemes to initiate after 2025, there is palpable anxiety among developing countries. They argue anything less than $1 trillion annually would not suffice to meet the mounting challenges posed by climate change.
The NCQG—this new target for climate finance—could reshape national action plans and responses to global environmental challenges, but its success hinges on coalition-building and enhanced commitments from wealthier nations. Historically, pledges have struggled to materialize, raising doubts among developing nations whether current reparations will result in something meaningful.
Environmental activists and leaders insist success stories exist and demand urgent action. Debbie Hillier, climate policy lead at Mercy Corps, called the proposed funding amounts “wildly out of step with the needs of developing countries”, decrying the potential betrayal for communities suffering the most from the effects of climate change.
To achieve meaningful action, it’s clear nations must come together not just for promises, but for accountability, ensuring resources flow where they are most needed. The stakes couldn't be higher—without effective funding mechanisms, the 1.5°C limit set by the Paris Agreement becomes just another distant target, risking the livelihoods of millions.
For these conversations to translate to tangible results, developed countries must align their ambitions with those of the countries bearing the brunt of climate change. With the fragility of planet earth hanging by the threads of international agreements and goodwill, COP29 stands at the crossroads: will nations finally commit to bold action? Or will the loss and damage fund, meant to signify hope, become another empty promise, echoing through time?
