Duke to the UNFCCC Archives

The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Baku marked a pivotal moment in global climate finance discussions, particularly surrounding the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). This ambitious framework seeks to define climate finance commitments post-2025, building on the $100 billion annual goal agreed upon in Copenhagen over a decade ago. While COP29’s NCQG negotiations represented progress, they also highlighted the significant challenges of balancing ambition with feasibility.

Developing vs. Developed Countries: A Divide in Expectations

The NCQG negotiations highlighted a stark divide between the expectations of developing and developed nations:

1. Developing Countries (G77 and China):
   • Advocated for an ambitious climate finance goal of $1.3 trillion annually by 2035.
   • Emphasized the need for grant-based financing with no conditionalities to ensure accessibility for vulnerable nations.
   • Called for specific allocations for adaptation and loss and damage while urging adherence to the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).
2. Developed Countries:
   • Acknowledged the necessity of scaling up climate finance to an ambitious yet realistic quantum
   • Proposed expanding the contributor base to include emerging economies.
   • Highlighted the importance of a multi-layered investment approach, combining public, private, and multilateral funding.
   • Expressed concerns about the complexity of the negotiation text and the timeline for finalizing agreements.

Key Negotiation Challenges

The NCQG discussions were characterized by procedural and substantive hurdles:

1. Text Complexity:
   • The current draft spans over 30 pages, with significant duplication of ideas and inconsistent phrasing.
   • Streamlining the text remains a priority to facilitate consensus.
2. Contentious Issues:
   • Quantum of Finance: The divergence between the $1.3 trillion demand and the $300 billion pledge.
   • Contributor Base: Debates over which countries should provide finance and in what proportions.
   • Access Mechanisms: Ensuring timely and equitable access for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
   • Transparency Frameworks: Balancing accountability with simplicity.
3. Procedural Demands:
   • Developing countries requested extended negotiation sessions and synthesis of the text, while developed nations preferred quicker progress to involve ministers.

COP29 Outcomes: A Floor, Not a Ceiling

Despite the challenges, COP29 produced measurable outcomes:

• A $300 billion annual pledge by 2035: While this figure falls significantly short of the $1.3 trillion needed, it provides a foundation for scaling ambition.
• “Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3T”: A strategy to guide incremental increases in climate finance leading up to COP30.
• Commitments to triple UNFCCC climate fund outflows to at least $5.2 billion per year by 2030.
• Expectations for multilateral development banks to deliver $120 billion annually by 2030.

Critical Perspectives

The $300 billion target, though a step forward, raises important questions:

• Ambition vs. Urgency: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stresses the need for rapid and substantial climate action. Yet, the current quantum does not reflect the urgency required to address the climate crisis.
• Finance Quality: There is limited specificity on improving access and balancing finance for mitigation and adaptation. Developing countries argue for clearer mechanisms and equitable distribution.
• Public-Private Mobilization: Historic ratios of public to private capital mobilization (e.g., $1 of public to $0.22 of private finance) highlight the gap in leveraging private investments.

Future Pathways

The journey to achieving climate finance goals is far from over. Looking ahead:

1. The “Baku to Belém” process must bridge divides and foster trust between developed and developing nations.
2. COP30 will play a critical role in refining mechanisms to ensure efficient, accessible, and scalable finance.
3. Increased attention is needed to support LDCs and SIDS, which are disproportionately vulnerable to climate impacts.
4. Ambitious targets must be integrated into the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Final Thoughts

The NCQG negotiations at COP29 offered both hope and frustration. While the $300 billion goal represents progress, it must be seen as a baseline for further ambition. Collaboration, innovation, and sustained advocacy will be essential to meet the climate finance needs of developing countries. As we move toward COP30, the global community must focus on not just meeting targets but exceeding them—ensuring a just and equitable transition to a sustainable future for all.

Last year, I remember sitting on the floor waiting in Toronto for my flight with my friend Luna (who introduced me to this climate diplomacy world and was part of the Practicum cohort in 2023) reading and processing COP28 outcomes. I remember getting excited that “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner” has been cited in the COP outcome document, the Global Stocktake (GST). I felt our actions the whole week were powerful and I even concluded that holding COPs in a petrostate is not a dead-end for a year of climate negotiations.

But then, COP29 happened, and it failed us as I haven’t experienced before (but I am sure this happened before in the COP’s history). The goal of COP29 was clear: to mobilize at least $1 trillion dollars from public or concessional money (grants) to support not only the energy transition (a fair and just transition) but also adaptation, and loss and damage for developing countries. But negotiations landed far from that. We left COP29 on Sunday with an agreement of 300 billion dollars coming from mixed sources without much transparency regarding developed countries’ responsibility in this scenario.

Many developing countries, especially LDCs (Least Developed Countries) and SIDs (Small Island Developing States), stated from the beginning that they couldn’t accept such a deal because the lack of compromise among developed countries was costing their communities. But they were pushed to accept such a number so the world would not see COP29 as a failure.

But it was.

The Paris Agreement is loud and clear: it is the developed countries responsibility to guarantee the world is fighting climate change because they are responsible for emissions. But they are not taking true accountability. How long will we be able to wait for the next COP to get a true resolution?

For the past year, all I have heard when I say I am from Brazil is people’s excitement about what will come out from COP30 at the heart of the Brazilian Amazon. But after such a difficult COP29, I wonder if Brazil will be able to reach everything people are expecting. Brazil has indeed already included the goal of raising trillions for climate finance next year, but will one single COP deliver what none of the 29 past ones did? Will the fossil fuel industry keep attending and shaping the climate change agenda as it did in the past years (with a delegation of around 1700 people in COP29)? Is the 1.5 degrees still within reach?

What I have realized inside the negotiation rooms following Loss and Damage negotiations is that there is a huge power imbalance between parties. LDCs and SIDs are raising their voices and needs, but even so, their demands are addressed only if they are in the interest of the most powerful parties.

For Loss and Damage, for example, there was a huge discussion on how the mechanisms to offer support to communities on the front lines are inaccessible for a lot of countries because of language and technical barriers. After a week of conversations about how to improve and review the mechanism, with the barriers to developing countries clear, we still didn’t have a drafted text and the presidency was pushing negotiations to end on Tuesday night of the second week.

What will it take for developing nations to be heard? What about their realities is not clear? We don’t have the luxury of time anymore.

I don’t have an answer to most of these questions and I think this is a reflex of how the process is: uncertain and sometimes unreliable. But as I have told before in my previous blog entries, we keep fighting because this is our only option. We keep fighting because we see the injustice and we value people.

I want to end my last reflection with my favorite chant of all from the climate movement (read this singing!):
“When the heat gets high (2x)

And the people rise (2x)

Can’t you hear us sing (2x)

It’s the end of fossil fuels (2x)”

Until COP30!

As the NCQG agreement left me disheartened, interactions with my classmates from the Sanford School made me realize that my perspective is not shared by everybody. As I shared my thought that $300 billion amount was too little from the target of $1 trillion, which the developing nations seek and needs, their response surprised me. They considered this an achievement, and they implied that climate finance was rarely a priority for developed countries and underlined the economic challenges many nations faced, including rising debt levels.

Their argument, though logical in their eyes, seemed almost counterintuitive to me. This agreement, in my eyes, was a missed opportunity toward much-needed action on behalf of the most vulnerable communities. However, I believe that their optimism and my discontent has a deeper disconnect-an inability to understand realities faced by developing nations.

This experience underscored the importance of spreading more awareness and education on global climate finance. Many people, even those deeply involved in policy, may not fully grasp the inequities and challenges that developing countries confront in their fight against climate change. Bridging this gap is critical to fostering empathy and pushing for equitable solutions – a lesson I’ve carried with me throughout this journey.

It’s with this perspective that I’ve chosen to focus solely on the positives in this blog—on the experiences that inspired me, the people who moved me, and the lessons I’ve taken away from this pivotal event.

A City That Inspires

Baku’s Old City was a revelation: a beautiful tapestry of history, culture, and resilience. Wandering its narrow streets, surrounded by ancient stone walls and amazing architecture, I couldn’t help but feel connected to something bigger than myself. It reminded me that the past and the present are deeply intertwined-just as our actions today shape the future.

Building Community

One of the most meaningful aspects of this experience was the deep connection I felt with my classmates in the UNFCCC practicum. From intense discussions regarding the negotiations to late-night dinners and drinks filled with laughter, this journey brought us closer in ways I couldn’t have imagined. Another important and proud moment was listening to my classmates Kayla and Dima present at a panel -I saw their hard work, dedication, and expertise shine. It reminded me of the power of collaboration and the importance of supporting each other in this shared mission.

Conversations That Matter

Among the many inspiring sessions, the discussions on climate mobility stood out. Listening to the talk that our great TA Gabriella made possible for us on the nexus of climate change and migration opened my eyes to the complexity of displacement and adaptation. These conversations fueled my determination to address the gaps I see back home in Albania, where climate change is often overlooked in education and public discourse.

It is disheartening to realize that many Albanian children grow up without even a mention of the word “climate change,” let alone taking any action, despite its rising impact on their futures. It was then that the spark of an idea lit inside of me: what if I could create a space where children learn about climate change and become empowered to act? The inspiration to start an NGO that educates Albanian youth about climate issues has been born in my mind, and I feel motivated to make this vision a reality.

The Power of Connection

Another highlight of COP29 was the opportunity to meet Duke alumni who are shaking things up in the climate space. Their stories of determination proved not only inspirational but also a reminder of what an incredible network we belong to. These, added to the great dinners we shared, reinforced the need and desire to build and nurture relationships. It’s these relationships that keep us going when the challenges just feel too big to handle.

Looking Ahead

As I go out of Baku, the mixture of emotions is in my heart. Grateful for all those experiences that have been a part of me, proud about all the people I met, and determined to bring it all back home. COP29 was much more than a conference; it was a catalyst.

The journey doesn’t stop here. Through education, advocacy, or collaboration, I am committed to creating a difference. And when I look ahead to the future, I know that the connections I have made and the lessons I have learned will guide me every step of the way. I hate goodbyes, so for me this is simply a “see you later”, hopefully in COP30 next year!

COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan ended two days ago. The outcomes of the conference did not please everyone, especially developing parties. The agreed amount of the NCQG, $300 billion per year by 2035, is not welcomed by developing parties as the agreement is far less than the more than $1 trillion developing nations sought.

It is a reality that the agreed NCQG does not adequately address the current climate needs of developing countries or align with scientific recommendations which show rapidly narrowing policy space to address climate change and realize the targets set in the Paris Agreement.

Climate change is a very challenging topic in terms of aligning scientific findings with actionable policy frameworks. The new $300 billion goal is not enough, but it should be acknowledged as an important milestone to continue global efforts toward a safer future. One of the welcoming points regarding the NCQG is that it acknowledges the fiscal constraints and increasing costs to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change for developing countries. The document also acknowledges the need for public and grant-based resources and highly concessional finance, particularly for adaptation and responding to loss and damage in developing parties.

The NCQG also calls on all actors to work together to enable the scaling up of financing to developing countries for climate action from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

So, what’s next? What should we expect from developed and developing countries to do at least until COP30?

Finance is an essential condition for the development and mobilization of climate action in developing countries. However, adaptation and mitigation funding in these countries require comprehensive structural and institutional reforms. The costly transition process will also require time to influence the behavior of both the population and institutions. Therefore, it is also important to place greater emphasis on implementing and supporting capacity-building initiatives and actionable policy measures in developing countries.

Countries at all stages of economic development may seek to improve the well-being of citizens and reduce their exposure to climate vulnerabilities, but their development priorities reflect different contexts. The climate finance allocation should consider the structural characteristics of national economies and the varying degrees to which investments can accelerate development and enhance resilience to climate change in these countries. Grant-based public funds provided by developed countries are not sufficient and will never be sufficient to address climate vulnerabilities. The private sector is essential for mobilizing and allocating significant climate finance to address these vulnerabilities, although the adequacy of the amounts and criteria for sufficiency remains uncertain. While recognizing the importance and ethical basis of advocating for common but differentiated responsibilities in climate negotiations, my observations at COP29 revealed that this approach often proved unproductive for developing countries. The divide between developed and developing countries on these issues appears insurmountable. Developing countries should make more efforts to implement structural reforms to attract foreign investment and facilitate adaptation and mitigation.

During COP29, I participated in numerous side events organized by the World Bank, IMF, OPEC Fund, Asian Development Bank, and European Union on green energy transition, adaptation, and mitigation financing challenges. These events provided me with a nuanced understanding of the climate finance challenges. The real policy challenges in addressing climate vulnerabilities lie in developing sustainable electrification strategies, establishing robust financial mechanisms to attract investments, and implementing comprehensive structural transformation policies.

Climate action’s success does not depend on the NCQG and endless negotiations to determine who bears historical responsibility for climate change. The success of COPs and global climate action is primarily associated with adopting and implementing actionable policy frameworks on supranational and national levels. Climate finance is essential to global climate action, but it is not a panacea. Targeted and ambitious policy actions are critical to addressing climate vulnerabilities.

At COP29 in Baku, one of the most thought-provoking sessions I attended was a joint presentation on “Global and Chinese Efforts in Advancing the Circular Economy to Combat Climate Change.” The session, led by Rick Duke, U.S. Deputy Envoy for Climate, and Liu Zhenmin, China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, unveiled the findings of a joint research report by U.S.-China circular economy experts. What stood out was not just the technical depth of their discussion but also the remarkable collaboration between two nations often seen as geopolitical adversaries.

Despite heightened tensions in areas like trade and security, the United States and China are proving that collaboration on shared global challenges like climate change is not only possible but essential. This partnership spans Track 2 diplomacy—collaborations among academics, civil society, and experts—and, in this instance, integrates Track 1 efforts, supported at the highest levels of government. This session was a tangible example of how science and shared goals can transcend political frictions.

Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency

The presentation emphasized the role of circular economy practices—such as recycling, reusing materials, and reducing waste—in mitigating climate change. Both nations are committed to fostering collaboration between enterprises, universities, and research institutions to advance these efforts. The alignment between the two largest global economies on this topic seems pragmatic and visionary.

A highlight of the report was the convergence of diplomacy, academic experts, and business associations. Their collective input underscores the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to addressing the climate crisis. By combining technical expertise, industry knowledge, and diplomatic support, this initiative demonstrates how broad collaboration can lead to innovative and scalable solutions.

Subnational Cooperation: Cities as Climate Leaders

Another fascinating aspect of the presentation was the focus on subnational cooperation. The United States and China committed to facilitating collaboration among states, provinces, and cities on areas like transportation, buildings, and waste management. This level of engagement is vital because, unlike the top-down approach of traditional climate policy, subnational actors often have the flexibility to implement bold, innovative solutions.

A Positive Signal for the Future

This collaboration aligns with the Sunnylands Statement on Enhancing Cooperation to Address the Climate Crisis, announced in 2023, which outlines a series of joint actions on energy transition, methane reduction, and low-carbon development. It also demonstrates that despite the geopolitical rifts, both nations recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and the mutual benefits of cooperation.

While these efforts may not resolve deeper tensions between the U.S. and China, they set a powerful example for the rest of the world. Climate action is too important to be held hostage by political divisions. If the two largest emitters can find common ground, so can others.