This third policy insight article comes at the conclusion of the proceedings of COP29 as well as the CCS COP29 De-Brief Panel, where we heard from four individuals who attended COP29 as either negotiators, advisors or observers. Their broad range of insights and experiences form the basis for this article to unpick further whether COP29 was a success, failure or continuance.
What are COPs?
Conferences of the Parties (COPs) are annual meetings of governments convened under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty adopted in 1992. They seek to advance global responses to climate change and reach agreement on targets, support and accountability measures. These events provide a forum for governments to meet and work together on climate change. However, the extent to which they achieve what they set out to do is contested. Negotiations often result in concessions on important issues, and this COP was no different.
COP29
This year, COP29 was held in Baku, Azerbaijan. The significance of the location cannot be ignored. Azerbaijan is one of the world's major oil and gas producers because its economy relies on fossil fuel extraction. Despite this, COP29 was labelled the finance COP because of its focus on providing financial support for developing countries to respond to the impacts of climate change.
This was the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance. At COP29, negotiations sought to increase the baseline of US$100 billion per year by 2025. The final agreement raised this to US$300 billion per year. This is a large sum, but it falls well short of the US$1.3 trillion that developing countries, which are already bearing the cost of climate change, hoped to reach.
In addition to the negotiations around the NCQG, agreement was reached on Article 6, which covers carbon markets under the Paris Agreement. This marked nearly 10 years since the agreement was formulated at COP21 in 2015.
As expected, the parties did not agree on everything. No consensus was reached on how last year's global stocktake would be used. Instead, that discussion moved to COP30 in Brazil. Proceedings were also overshadowed by Donald Trump's re-election in the USA and his pledge to remove the country from the Paris Accord.
CCS panel discussion
At the end of Michaelmas term, CCS held a panel discussion to debrief the events of COP29 with four people who attended the conference: Zita Wilks, Ana Romero, Beth Doherty and Shreya Patel. We were privileged to hear about their views and experiences.
The main takeaway was that steps in the right direction are being made, but progress is not fast enough. This was especially clear in the discussion of the NCQG. The panel also stressed the importance of giving a wide range of voices a platform.
COPs bring states from around the world together to negotiate climate targets. That does not mean every person or country is heard equally. Financial resources, the size of a delegation and perceived global standing all affect who gets heard. The panel also discussed the involvement, or often the lack of involvement, of young people in these conversations. Each panellist recognised the steps that have been taken, while pointing out how much further there is to go to protect people and the planet.
Final remarks
It is important that hope is not lost. COP events create a forum for international discussions about climate change and possible solutions. The media covers the proceedings as much as possible, with headlines focusing on major outcomes or disagreements. This does not capture every discussion, issue or protest that takes place at COPs.
The many conversations at each COP mean that there is something of interest for everyone, with topics including climate finance, agriculture and biodiversity. Progress has been made, particularly on the NCQG, since the previous COP. The hope is that this progress continues in the coming years as we look towards COP30 in Brazil in 2025.