Unpacking COP29 and Looking Beyond the Pledges.
The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary international forum for addressing the global challenge of climate change. It convenes leaders from across the globe over two weeks and has become the main climate change related event that tries to strike a fine balance between priorities of individual countries and global climate policy needs.
CLP’s Climate Policy and Communication Cluster believe the conference is a great backdrop to discuss all the interlinked issues within the climate space but also has its limitations as was seen at COP29 in Baku. In this article, we - Ali Moukhadder (Harvard Business School), Anthony Wanna (Harvard Business School), Donguk Lee (Harvard Graduate School of Design), Farida Razaqi (Harvard Law School), and Neeha Mujeeb (Harvard Kennedy School) - explore the outcomes of COP29 - wins and disappointments - and how it can be improved. Our very own Donguk Lee reported live from COP29 through a special interview with NGO IBON International on civil society engagement.
COP: A Brief Introduction
Established in 1992 following the adoption of the UNFCCC at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, COP convenes annually to assess progress and set binding targets aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change impacts. With 197 Parties—countries and regional organizations—the COP serves as the central platform for global climate negotiations, where policy frameworks, action plans, and financial mechanisms are crafted to steer the world toward a sustainable future.
The structure of the COP is built around the decision-making body (the COP itself), which is supported by various subsidiary bodies and expert groups. The presidency of each COP rotates annually, with host countries playing a key role in facilitating the discussions. Over the years, key outcomes have shaped the international climate policy landscape, including the historic 2015 Paris Agreement, which set a landmark global commitment to limit global warming to well below 2°C, with a more ambitious goal of 1.5°C. Other pivotal moments include the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which set legally binding emission reduction targets for developed nations, and the 2021 Glasgow Climate Pact, which emphasized the need for stronger emissions reductions and climate finance commitments.
As COP continues to evolve, it remains crucial in advancing global efforts to address the climate crisis, enabling nations to collaborate on solutions, track progress, and push for greater ambition in the fight against climate change.
CLP Cluster logo generated by Fotor AI.
COP29 outcomes
COP29 or ‘Finance COP’, held in Baku at the end of 2024, started on a contentious note with the President of Azerbaijan Ilhan Aliyev referring to oil and gas as a “Gift from God.” This was followed by several dramatic moments including Argentina pulling its delegation out from the negotiations and France not sending its climate minister - both based on political issues not directly related to climate but using this international platform to make a statement. Several major world leaders were missing while the election of President Trump loomed large on the future of the Paris Agreement, rightfully so as on Jan 20, 2025 Trump signed an executive order withdrawing from the Paris Agreement again. As with COP28, there was criticism of COPs being hosted in a ‘petrostate’ with an open letter issued by many leaders such as Ban Ki Moon calling for COPs to no longer be held in “countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.” Negotiations went late into week 2, going over the allocated time. The final agreements had three key components that define the wins and losses of COP29: Climate finance, Carbon Markets and Fossil Fuel Transition.
Climate Finance: Developed countries agreed on ‘taking the lead’ in mobilizing a ‘New Collective Quantified Goal’ of USD 300 billion annually to developing countries by 2035. Developed countries in the UN context are those that are industrialized and have a historical responsibility for high GHG emissions and thus does not include newly industrialized and rich nations such as the Gulf countries in the Middle East. This commitment represents a significant increase from the previous USD 100 billion target; however, it falls short of the USD 1.3 trillion experts estimate is required to meet global climate goals of external funding. The text doesn’t specify how the money will be disbursed, how private sector capital will be mobilized, whether funds will be paid out in loans or grants or what ‘taking the lead’ means. The vague wording may leave the door open for developed countries to only deliver some of the promised finance. Moreover, several delegations felt the decision was rushed and countries were not given sufficient time to react before the gavel. Countries such as India and Nigeria openly criticized and rejected the deal calling it an ‘‘optical illusion”, a “paltry sum”, and a “joke”.
Carbon Markets: A major breakthrough was found in ‘Article 6’ negotiations that have been in discussion for almost a decade, establishing an architecture for carbon markets. The article specifies mandatory safeguards related to nature and human rights for creating and selling carbon credits globally. This is a key development as several countries’ NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) rely heavily on the operationalization of Article 6. However, as with the climate finance decision, several delegations labeled it a “backdoor deal” and a “carbon coup,” criticizing its hasty adoption. Others raised concern that sufficient enforcement mechanisms have not been put in place to ensure the integrity of these markets.
Fossil Fuel Transition: The biggest setback was probably seen in the language surrounding fossil fuels. COP28 in Dubai was hailed as a breakthrough being the first time “transitioning away from fossil fuels” was mentioned in the final text. COP29 did not reiterate this language which many saw as backtracking on the progress made at COP28. While there was progress made on other energy related topics such as energy storage, targeting a six fold increase in global capacity by 2030, the pledges made at COP28 around tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency were not sufficiently discussed in the final agreement.
Why did COP29 culminate in such a disappointing deal?
Before examining why COP29 failed to set an adequate climate finance goal, it is warranted to shed light on why such a substantial financial commitment is needed in the first place.
The estimated USD 1.3 trillion represents the debt owed by developed countries, who are responsible for 92% of historical global emissions, to the communities most vulnerable to climate impacts, such as heatwaves, drought, and flooding. According to a study conducted by the International Rescue Committee and the World Resource Institute, such countries include Somalia, India, Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sudan, Nigeria, and Ethiopia. It is reported that Africa is already spending 5-9% of its GDP in response to challenges brought about by climate change, and without financial support from developed countries, these communities struggle to recover from loss and damage, adapt to climate change, or transition away from fossil fuels.
Global mechanisms to hold developed countries accountable for unmet finance commitments remain weak, and several reasons, both known and unknown, have led to the ~75% gap between the required and pledged climate capital.
Here, we explore the limitations of COP’s multilateral decision-making processes, where developed countries have more influence than developing ones:
Developed countries are increasingly prioritizing nationalism and resource protectionism, often undermining global climate goals. Although COP provides an equal platform for developing and developed nations, the demands of developing countries continue to be frequently sidelined.
This could be driven by a combination of factors, such as:
Developed nations have greater representation and advanced negotiating capabilities at COP. In contrast, developing countries often face resource limitations, smaller delegations, and challenges participating fully in negotiations, reducing their influence
Funding responsibility sits in the hands of developed nations, which indirectly gives them a stronger voice in how funds are allocated and used, which can influence decision-making processes
Developed countries' historical influence in global institutions like the UN and financial bodies enables them to shape COP agendas and outcomes
Climate activities continue to ask for changes in the governance and decision-making mechanisms of COP; however, little has been done so far to alleviate the current imbalance of power in what is supposed to be a consensus-driven process.
Reforming the climate finance for a just and sustainable future.
Equity and Grant Based Mechanisms
The new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance and other funding mechanisms must prioritize equity and the specific needs of countries in its design and implementation. This means moving beyond a one-size-fits-all approach to climate finance and tailoring solutions to the unique challenges faced by the most vulnerable nations. A crucial aspect of this is to create flexible, grant-based funding mechanisms that don't saddle vulnerable nations with more debt. Traditional finance channels often come with restrictive conditions that smaller or less-developed nations struggle to meet. By focusing on simplified access criteria and dedicated funding windows for highly vulnerable regions, the new finance goal can ensure resources reach where they are needed most—quickly and efficiently.
However, this does not end here, as investment can only drive sustainable development if we focus beyond financial return. The current metrics for assessing investments are predominantly skewed towards financial returns, which can undermine the potential for climate finance to deliver on broader development goals. By considering social, environmental, and governance impacts a better approach must progress beyond just a matter of ticking sustainable development goal (SDG) boxes; it requires a nuanced understanding of how projects interact with local ecosystems, social structures, and governance systems. For instance, despite widespread recognition of gender equality as a crucial component of sustainable development, it remains significantly underfunded. Oxfam estimates that only around a third of climate finance projects in 2017–18 were designed to respond to the different needs of women and men. Only an estimated 1.5% of climate-related official development assistance (ODA) identified gender equality as a primary objective, and 34% identified gender equality as an important but not principal objective. To bridge these gaps, it is essential to institutionalize gender markers, increase accountability, and ensure targeted investments in women-focused solutions.
Enabling Environment and Private Sector Investment
Private sector investment is crucial for meeting the global climate goals as public finance has significantly fallen short of providing the much-needed finance. However, barriers like high perceived risks and market volatility continue to deter investments in climate projects. Scaling up the private sector finance requires coordinated interventions by governments targeting unique barriers and risks within a country to reduce the uncertainty investors face, making markets more predictable and attractive for the private sector. De-risking measures transfer risk from the private sector to public bodies via instruments like guarantees, insurance products, or credit lines to commercial banks.
Policy de-risking helps create this enabling environment by addressing regulatory and institutional barriers, such as the establishment of clear and consistent energy policies, reformed regulatory frameworks, and well-defined renewable energy targets that are actively supported by the government. These steps are crucial for reducing the uncertainty investors face, making markets more predictable and attractive for renewable energy investments.
Effective national energy planning is also crucial as it mitigates uncertainties, clarifies investment needs, attracts capital through incentives like tax breaks, and fosters partnerships. Many developing countries still face significant hurdles in establishing supportive frameworks for renewable energy, with only half of least developed countries (LDCS) and one-third of small island developing states (SIDS) having adopted comprehensive renewable energy policies. As the new cycle of updated nationally determined contributions (NDCs) approaches with COP30, one of the key opportunities to address these challenges lies in integrating clear, actionable clean energy targets into NDCs.
Financial de-risking is equally essential to effectively mitigate risks that often deter investment. These measures typically transfer certain risks from the private sector to public bodies using financial instruments like guarantees, insurance products, and credit lines to commercial banks. For example, the IDB Brazil Hedging Platform which is developed to support Brazil's Green Transformation Plan helps reduce foreign exchange risk for energy investments.
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are increasingly recognized as a key strategy to scale up private sector investments. Blended Finance mechanisms -which combine public and private resources to de-risk investments and attract private capital for high impact projects- can be strategic mechanisms in scaling up additional private investments towards sustainable energy projects through PPPs, as it enables shared risk between public and private stakeholders. The success of blended finance lies in its ability to unlock substantial private investments through the strategic use of limited public funds. Blended Finance Facilities leverage PPPs and are increasingly recognized as vital for scaling up investments in renewable energy. By using limited public funds to de-risk projects, governments, and development organizations can attract substantial private investments into high-impact projects, thereby accelerating the energy transition. By fostering a conducive environment for private sector participation, blended finance initiatives can unlock large-scale investments where traditional mechanisms have struggled.
Yet, beyond policy and financing, a truly enabling environment ultimately hinges on the institutional capacity within developing countries to manage and sustain these projects. Strengthening institutional capacity involves enhancing the skills, systems, and structures necessary to effectively plan, implement, and maintain renewable energy initiatives. For example Africa’s Renewable Energy Cooperation Programme (RECP) focuses on building capacity and fostering technology transfer by connecting key stakeholders across Africa and the EU. RECP has been instrumental in promoting renewable energy policies, encouraging joint ventures, and mobilizing resources for the continent’s energy transition. On a global scale, the Clean Energy Ministerial’s Solutions Center has supported over 90 countries with expert advice, capacity building, and resources to develop tailored renewable energy policies.
Perspectives from Global South participants in COP29.
Finally, we had the chance to interview Ivan Phell Enrille, Programme Manager at IBON International, which is a global non-governmental organization based in Manila, Philippines, established as the international arm of the IBON Foundation.
IBON International collaborates primarily with social movements and civil society constituencies worldwide, especially in the Global South and among marginalized groups, and it took a notable stance during COP29 through a protest against some of the outcomes discussed previously.
Figure. IBON International’s campaign highlighting climate justice and the rights of marginalized communities during COP29
Interview Questions:
About the Protest
Can you describe the protest organized by IBON International at COP 29? What inspired this action, and what were its main features?
“We organized several protest actions at COP29 in collaboration with peoples’ movements, civil society, and constituency groups. One of the actions we organized was on centering real solutions to the climate crisis — from real emissions reductions by global North countries and their corporations based on their accumulated historical emissions and capacity to grassroots-led solutions, indigenous practices and knowledge that respect, promote, and realize the rights and wellbeing of people while ensuring ecological balance.
The action was inspired by the experiences and struggles of our global South partners and allies that promote grassroots-led solutions to the climate crisis which we have compiled in the last three years and published last COP28 and COP29. But the urgency of the action was also made palpable by the fact that the COP29 Presidency was adamant in pushing for the operationalization of the rules on carbon trading and carbon markets despite not going through scrutiny of Parties and objections raised by civil society and affected communities, especially Indigenous Peoples.
The action featured speeches from leaders from peoples’ movements in the global South representing sectors such as small holder farmers, landless peasants, Indigenous Peoples, women, and youth.”
What challenges did you encounter in organizing and executing this protest, especially within the context of a global conference like COP 29?
“First, protest actions need to be coordinated and approved by the UNFCCC secretariat. Second, the UNFCCC secretariat requires the submission and pre-approval of posters and messages to be used for the action. This is tantamount to censorship. Third, there is no assurance that actions applied for will be approved. Sometimes, actions are approved on the day itself, and this deprives the organizers the opportunity to ensure that they are able to invite people, organizations, and media to attend the action. Fourth, and this is particular to COP29, the number of attendees to the action are limited to 20 or 50 participants, depending on the approved location.
Violations to these rules and protocols will be penalized including de-badging and getting kicked out of COP (and potentially banned from future COPs).”
Objectives and Messages
What were the core messages or demands IBON International aimed to deliver through the protest, particularly to world leaders and policymakers?
“For COP29, IBON International united with the wider climate justice movement in demanding fair, ambitious, and transformative climate finance. We reiterated that climate finance is an obligation by developed countries to developing countries, as part of the payment for the huge climate debt that the global North owes to the South. We were categorical that climate finance, which runs in trillions according to estimates, should be distinct from official development aid, private sector investments, and financial flows from international financial institutions and multilateral development banks.
We called on COP29 to deliver a climate finance package that comprehensively met the needs of developing countries to adapt to climate change and address climate-induced loss and damage, and transform their economies and energy systems towards sustainable pathways.
We emphasized that climate finance should go towards real climate solutions and must be accessible to sectors and communities, such as indigenous peoples, landless peasants, grassroots women, urban and rural poor that champion real climate solutions that at the same time address cross-cutting struggles for economic and social justice.”
How does IBON International ensure that the voices of marginalized communities, especially from the Global South, are heard and prioritized in such high-level global discussions?
“As an organization working to advance the capacity of peoples’ movements and organizations, IBON International publishes education resources and communications materials, convenes campaign and advocacy actions and networks, and facilitates their participation in high-level political forums and conferences. IBON International ensures that our grassroots partners and allies are informed and empowered to engage policymakers. We ensure that in the spaces where we work, such as in UNFCCC constituencies and working groups, our grassroots partners and allies are able to articulate their priorities and struggles and represent their communities/sectors in interventions and other speaking opportunities.”
Future Plans and Calls to Action
What are the next steps for IBON International in continuing the advocacy efforts initiated at COP 29? Are there specific campaigns, partnerships, or actions planned?
“IBON International will be organizing several regional consultations in the coming months to draw up our campaign and advocacy engagement plans for 2025 in the lead up to and during COP30 in Belem, Brazil. Just Transition is shaping to be a priority theme in the negotiations, but also for many movements in the global South. Just Transition isn’t only about transforming our energy systems but also an opportunity to discuss the more difficult transformations that we need to see in our economies, in our political and military institutions, social and cultural relations to ensure that we have a future that is not only sustainable, but equitable and just as well.
We will continue to engage COP but we will also look into other multilateral spaces this year where climate is also going to figure in their negotiations such as the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development, the meetings of multilateral banks such as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank, the Asia Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development, UN Environment Assembly, etc.”
What message would you like to send to individuals and organizations around the world about the urgency of climate justice and how they can contribute to meaningful change?
“Climate justice is inextricably linked to our fight for the broader fight for system change. Climate change after all is the result of broader systemic problems of capitalism and imperialism. We need to be actively working not only during COP but also should be involved and immersed in the struggles of grassroots and frontline communities to root out exploitation and oppression in all their interlinked contexts and manifestations.”