COP29: HARD BARGAINS, DISSATISFIED PARTIES

Between the rhetoric and action, COP climate summits usually end with small, inadequate steps. Baku was no different

- PAnima

Shorn of negotiator parlance, the latest edition of the Conference of Parties (COP29) can be summed up with the one-liner from the movie Jerry Maguire: Show me the money. In Baku, Azerbaijan, ground zero of oil wells and an unlikely milieu for the pursuit of a cleaner planet, traditional negotiating blocs sparred and wrangled over a fortnight for a decision on climate finance.

The quantum of money-and more so, its nature was at the crux of the negotiations to mobilize capital to address climate change. The exercise mandated by the Paris Agreement is to produce the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).

The new ask ballparked at $1.3 trillion a year. The current commitment is at $100 billion a year. The wide-open negotiating field called for exalted ambition and commitment. Eventually, COP29 demurred and stuttered to cough up $300 billion a year by 2035.

Simon Stiell, executive secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said the result is an 'insurance policy' subject to timely payment of premium. India called the outcome stagemanaged and vociferously registered its objection. Nigeria labelled it an insult. Many developing countries and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) shared India's stance. The unyielding position of developed countries had left the Global South clutching at straws, said experts.

"A disappointing and unambitious goal," said RR Rashmi, India's former principal negotiator and distinguished fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute. "Developing countries were pushed to accept the deal. The ambition was set by developed countries and others had to fall in line willy-nilly. In the end the [COP29] Presidency was trying to save its skin by coming to an agreement in one form or the other," he added.

THE TRUMP FACTOR