Author: Sayra Martinez

At the end of this COP29, I have nothing but to thank for the experience. The city is vibrant, beautiful, and culturally rich. I attended interesting press conferences, and special events on gender, technology, and food systems, among others, and I keep realizing how many issues that I never connected with are related to climate change.

By now, we already know what the outcomes are. The quantum, the sources, the contributors, and the time frame are not what developing countries expected, even less what they need. The $300 billion annually by 2035 will fall far short of addressing the scale of the climate crisis. There is no clarity on grant-based climate finance commitments, and it is ambiguous if developed countries will be who bear the costs. We also know that India -backed up by other developing countries- rejected the deal and stood up for the Global South. Would this alone change the outcome? Probably not immediately but in the mid-term as countries keep pushing for more robust and fair climate finance commitments.

However, until now, the range of opinions on what happened is broad. Some think that this Climate Finance COP was -from the beginning- the chronicle of a death foretold, while others blame Azerbaijan’s leadership for improperly forcing a deal at the last minute, which led to tensions among nations. I believe that these negotiations were a sort of “glass cliff” for an oil-producer developing country like Azerbaijan. Any other country would have faced the inevitable challenges and setbacks that bargaining on finance could bring,,  but in this case, the “feelingNJJJ of failure” that permeates is attributed to the features of the host country rather thaNJn the diffppajskSicult circumstances they were placed in.

The words of Steve Hamer, from NY Climate Exchange, still resonate in my head. He mentioned that perhaps we must evaluate if the UNFCCC is the correct channel to discuss and reach agreements on climate change or not. Might regional agreements be more effective than global ones? I think that the UNFCCC is still useful. It offers a structured process for negotiation, accountability, and collaboration, and is a visible platform for projects, public-private partnerships, academia, and civil society that advocate for sustainable development.

As we look ahead to COP30 in Belém, it brings new challenges and opportunities. This location will allow participants to resume conversations put on hold, but it also raises concerns. Choosing a town in the middle of the Amazon jungle could lead to pollution or destruction of the ecosystem to host the event. These challenges must be addressed to ensure that COP30 achieves meaningful progress without compromising the environment, the local communities, and other vulnerable groups we seek to protect.

During my second day at the COP29, I decided to look at the High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Adaptation finance. I was surprised to witness a session that sounded much like the first one. Every speech seemed like an opening statement calling for goodwill to cooperate, referring to some data on climate change impacts, and -in the least of cases- discussing some actions.

I tried to understand what was happening and I thought of these two options: either they already had a draft they were not showing at that moment (that would explain the slow pace of the session despite being so close to the final day of negotiations) or they were ready to postpone decisions. It appeared they were there to talk out loud so the press in their respective countries would have material about them addressing climate-change issues, but not necessarily making specific commitments. That is what the group concluded as well during dinner that day.

The sentiment of a COP29 that was looking forward to COP30 was louder. And, from the decision maker’s perspective, I understood that. Among other factors, the negotiators are facing uncertainty regarding what the next US administration is going to do on these matters. f they make big decisions now despite such an unstable basis, the risk of discontent and envy from the next US administration to leave the table would be greater.

After that, I headed to the Delegations pavilions. There, I feel, we could find the proof that not everything is decided in the UNFCCC negotiations and that bilateral cooperation, public-private partnerships, academia, and ONG have advanced and will continue to look for options. That day, I attended the presentations on building resilient infrastructure in Brazil and India (the latter, in the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure -CRDI- pavilion). In both cases, mapping, monitoring, and design of resilient infrastructure were fundamental, however, the CRDI highlighted the need to perform risk assessment during the infrastructure lifecycle. I could not help but think about this need in Mexico, my home country.

The next day, I spent a few hours in the China pavilion, where they handled the “Enterprise Day”. I was surprised listening to US and Chinese officials talk together about what they have done and what they can do together to enhance climate change. They specifically presented 3 joint reports on circular economy derived from the tasks of the U.S.-China Working Group on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s. The first report was focused on Eco-design Guidelines and Voluntary standards for Plastic Products; the second on Remanufacturing; and the third on Circularity and Efficiency Improvements in Construction Materials.

Despite disagreements on trade and even on the quantum and sources of the new collective quantified goal, it was interesting to see how these two countries still joined efforts to improve practices in large emitter industries. Of course, major commitment and actions are needed from the bigger emitters, but it was somewhat refreshing to see that not everything is lost.

I got lost in the streets of Baku and I quickly discovered the warmth and hospitality of the people. Despite the language barrier, people were friendly and eager to help, allowing me to smoothly correct my way to the Stadium and enjoy the views that this monumental city offers. Upon arriving at the Stadium, I could feel the mixed energy that permeated the venue. There was the enthusiasm from those starting their participation and the cautious realism of those entering their second week, but in all cases, we are not naïve. We are aware of the challenges ahead.

As I strolled through the Delegations Pavilion, I was struck by the diverse array of exhibits and discussions that were taking place. The Pavilion buzzed with activity and still struggling with the effects of the travel, I looked for a place where to grab and order my ideas in that moment, so I headed to the Special Events area, eager to attend some technology-related sessions. One event in particular, “Sports for Climate Action,” turned out great, even though I initially was there just waiting for the next event.

The event was structured into three distinct panels, each shedding light on different aspects of the intersection between sports and climate action. The first panel featured high-level experts from organizations such as the Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile (FIA), the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), FIFA, Real Betis, and Liverpool Football Club. These experts discussed their strategies for reducing emissions within their supply chains and addressed various event-related challenges posed by climate change. Topics included plans and strategies for mobilization, waste management, and the sustainable use of energy and water resources.

The second panel brought together officials from the Panama Ministry of Environment, the Brazil Ministry of Sports, and an expert from the International Transport Forum at the OECD. We could tell how the insights and priorities related to climate change were different from the first panel. Although they have clarity on their importance for economic factors, it was not about the events anymore. This time it was the policy addressing climate change’s problems to athletes, teams, organizers, and fans.

The final panel featured testimonials from athletes such as Katie Rood, Eroni Leilua, Sofie Junge Pedersen, David Rudisha, Sam Mattis, and Pragnya Mohan. These athletes shared their personal experiences of how climate change has directly or indirectly impacted their communities, training, and participation in sports. From this last panel, I would underscore the urgent need for human-centered approaches when addressing climate change.

From all the different insights shared during the event, it became clear that addressing climate change requires comprehensive and inclusive strategies. I hope COP29 act upon this need for a holistic approach. And, well, next days are to monitor some of the negotiations…