World leaders reached a consensus on the “Baku Finance Goal” following two weeks of deliberations at the 29th United Nations Climate Summit (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. This plan calls for the mobilisation of $1.3 trillion in Climate Finance by 2035, with wealthier countries making a substantial yearly commitment of $300 billion to help developing nations combat climate change. Despite tripling the $100 billion goal established in 2009, the accord was criticised, especially by the Global South, which felt it was unrealistic and insufficient.
Nigerian and other delegates were disappointed, describing the accord as a “insult” because of what they saw as its lack of vision and equality. Obstacles in the Negotiation process included walkouts, complaints of obstruction by wealthier countries, and discontent with drafts. Disagreements caused the conference to last longer than scheduled. Nkiruka Maduekwe, the delegate for Nigeria, contended that the financial targets were impractical for accomplishing significant Climate Action in states that were at risk. Notwithstanding the agreement’s flaws, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged countries to fulfil their obligations as soon as possible.
Leaders from the Global South criticised the agreement as being unfair.
Long-standing differences in how wealthy and developing countries respond to Climate Change are the root of the dispute surrounding the “Baku Finance Goal” COP29 established. Aiming to raise $1.3 trillion in climate finance by 2035, the objective also commits $300 billion a year to developing nations. In light of their increasing climate concerns, leaders from the Global South, however, criticised the agreement as being unfair, unrealistic, and insufficient. These arguments focus on the larger conflict between rich countries, who have traditionally been responsible for the majority of emissions, and developing countries, which are disproportionately impacted by climate change yet lack the means to adequately adapt.
COP15 in 2009 established the $100 billion annual climate funding target to aid developing countries in their adaptation and mitigation initiatives. However, this goal was continuously missed by wealthier nations. Only $83.3 billion, for example, had been raised in 2020, according to reports, with a large amount of that amount coming in the form of loans rather than grants. This deficiency undermined confidence between wealthy and developing countries, creating a tense environment for the Baku COP and other COP meetings. Prosperous countries frequently draw attention to their financial limitations and favour financing options like loans, which they claim promote responsibility.
Asia and Africa have emphasised the importance of money for adaptation.
Global South representatives, on the other hand, stress that, in light of their past Emissions and their obligations under the Paris Agreement, wealthier nations have a moral duty to offer equal help. Given that countries are already experiencing extreme effects like floods, droughts, and Rising sea levels, representatives from Asia and Africa have emphasised time and again how important it is to provide money for adaptation. For instance, Nigerian delegates to COP29 called the $300 billion yearly commitment an insult, pointing out that the amount of money is insufficient to address the severity of their climate situation.
Both mitigation (lowering emissions) and adaptation (becoming ready for the effects of climate change) are to be supported by the $300 billion contribution each year. Enhancing Infrastructure to survive harsh weather and investing in climate-resilient Agriculture are examples of adaptation strategies, whereas financing Renewable Energy projects and closing coal plants are examples of mitigation strategies. But according to a UN Environment Programme report from 2023, adaption expenses in underdeveloped nations are already predicted to reach $160–340 billion a year by 2030 and beyond. This implies that the promised sum could not be sufficient to meet present and future demands even if it is completely provided.
Related Article: Climate Plans Fall Short of Global Targets
Notwithstanding the difficulties, there are examples of successful climate financing initiatives. The Ouarzazate Solar Power Station in Morocco, which was partially funded by international donors, is a historic renewable energy project that has decreased the country’s reliance on fossil fuels; and Kenya, where climate funds have been used to support smallholder farmers with drought-resistant crops and Irrigation systems, improving Food Security in arid regions. For instance, Bangladesh’s investments in cyclone shelters and warning systems funded by international climate finance have significantly reduced fatalities during extreme weather events. These illustrations highlight the possibilities of climate money when it is distributed appropriately and stress how crucial it is to fulfil promises in order to build confidence and promote international advancement.