COP 29: Implications of COP outcomes for nonstate and cooperative climate action
Over 50 thousand participants, including Party delegates and observers, came together this November at the 29th UN Climate Change Conference in Baku, to advance the global response to climate change. Critical topics included setting a new goal for financial flows from developed countries to developing ones, deciding on rules for UN-led carbon markets, increasing national ambition and implementation through forthcoming Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans, and how to operationalise the Global Stocktake’s outcomes regarding the need to transition away from fossil fuels.
Despite some progress, the overall outcome of COP29 is seen by most as a severe blow to ambition and hopes to stay on track with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature goal. Here, we discuss some of the most critical shortcomings and their implications for voluntary climate action:
- New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance: Amidst a controversial closing plenary where Parties like India and Nigeria explicitly rejected the final decision, COP29 adopted a new finance goal to support developing countries. The new quantum tripled the previous goal, amounting to USD 300 billion annually by 2035. However, this amount is seen as “too little, too late”. Developing nations asked for support equivalent to USD 1.3 trillion, with a substantial component from public grants. However, the sources that can be accounted for as climate finance remain ambiguous. In this context, it will be essential to explore how cooperative and voluntary nonstate initiatives, often led by national governments, development aid agencies, and multilateral development banks, support climate finance and whether these contributions will be counted towards delivering on the new quantified goal.
- Article 6: Years of negotiations finally delivered on a set of rules for carbon markets under the Paris Agreement. Many frame this as a win, but criticism persists over loopholes and safeguards, for instance, related to the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. Concerns have arisen regarding trade-offs with human rights, the rights of Indigenous Peoples, other social and environmental issues like biodiversity loss, and the integrity of net-zero and neutrality claims based on offsets.
- Mitigation Work Programme (MWP): The MWP was established at COP26 to “urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation”. Ever since, discussions have stalled as Parties struggle to decide how to integrate the outcomes of the Global Stocktake and include substantive decisions on mitigation actions. The decision at COP29 received criticism for not addressing the phase-out of fossil fuels, nor offering guidance on forthcoming NDCs. The decision merely reaffirmed the “nationally determined nature” of NDCs. This deadlock means that voluntary climate action might be pivotal in addressing mitigation gaps. Moreover, it will be essential to evaluate how new NDCs link national action with subnational and nonstate initiatives, including CCIs.
Radboud colleagues have commented on COP29 in various outlets: