The opening day of COP29, the 29th annual Conference of the Parties under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was a whirlwind—a storm of jet lag, uncertainty, and a steep learning curve. Over the course of 72 hours of travel, I had managed a mere six hours of sleep, only to find myself thrust into the epicenter of global climate policy. As an environmental engineer focused on global health, I knew this conference would be crucial to shaping the future of my work. What I didn’t anticipate was how lost I would feel on Day 1.

Navigating Day 1: A Lesson in Overwhelm

My work revolves around protecting water quality post-disaster, a task made more challenging by the escalating intensity of storms driven by climate change. I knew that addressing this issue required an understanding of policy frameworks like the UNFCCC. But as I stepped into COP29 armed with a two-week blue zone badge and a loose plan to absorb everything, I quickly realized that my expectations were unrealistic.

The sheer scale of the conference was intimidating. High-level negotiations buzzed alongside dynamic pavilion presentations and intimate side events. My engineering background left me ill-prepared for the intricate policy language and the complex landscape of stakeholders.

Rather than diving into meaningful sessions, I spent most of Day 1 simply wandering, overwhelmed by the enormity of the task ahead. I felt isolated, unable to connect my technical expertise with the broader policy discussions unfolding around me. Day 1 ended with me feeling more out of place than ever.

Turning the Tide on Day 2

Day 2, however, was a revelation. It began with a RINGO (Research and Independent Non-Governmental Organizations) meeting, which provided me with a clearer understanding of COP logistics. This was a game-changer. I secured tickets for specific events and gained insights into navigating the conference more effectively.

From there, I attended a U.S. delegation briefing, where I encountered other students who were just as eager to learn and contribute. Sharing experiences and strategies with peers transformed my experience, offering me a newfound sense of belonging.

The most transformative moment of the day came when I pushed myself to network—a skill I’ve historically found uncomfortable. I approached individuals who seemed too important or experienced to have time for someone like me, only to discover their willingness to engage. These conversations opened doors to invaluable advice about integrating science into policy, reinforcing the idea that every voice has a place in these discussions.

Joint Panel on Methane and Non-CO₂ Greenhouse Gases

A highlight of Day 2 was attending the joint panel discussion co-hosted by Azerbaijan, China, and the United States, focusing on methane and other non-CO₂ greenhouse gases. This session underscored the critical need to address all emissions, that significantly contribute to global warming. The collaboration between these major emitters signaled a unified approach to tackling climate super pollutants, emphasizing the importance of immediate action and international cooperation.

Opening Statements from Countries

The opening statements from various countries set the tone for COP29. President Mukhtar Babayev of Azerbaijan urged decisive action, stating that climate change is already causing suffering and needs immediate leadership and action. UNFCCC Climate Chief Simon Stiell stressed the necessity of setting a new global climate finance goal, warning that without adequate funding, both emissions reduction and global economic stability are at risk. These statements highlighted the urgency and collective responsibility required to address the climate crisis.

Lessons Learned

Day 2 taught me that preparation and connection are key to making the most of COP. While Day 1 left me floundering in unfamiliar jargon and an overwhelming schedule, Day 2 was about grounding myself—finding people who could guide me and sessions that aligned with my goals.

Most importantly, stepping out of my comfort zone allowed me to grow. Socializing with professionals, initiating conversations, and building a network weren’t just necessary—they were empowering.

Looking Ahead

As I continue my journey at COP29, I’m carrying forward the lessons from my chaotic first day and my illuminating second day. I’m learning how to navigate the intersection of science and policy, how to advocate for issues like water quality in the context of climate resilience, and how to use this experience to shape my career.

COP29 isn’t just a conference—it’s a microcosm of the challenges and opportunities that come with addressing global climate change. And as I move forward, I’m reminded that even in the most overwhelming situations, persistence, adaptability, and connection can transform confusion into clarity.

In order to deal with the chaos of COP, and per the request of my client (Sustainable Ocean Alliance) and my personal interest in AOSIS, I have been focusing primarily on Loss and Damage negotiations. 

As of time of writing, Loss and Damage negotiations are stalled due to the slow progress being made on the NCQG. Parties have yet to discuss the quantum and there is a quiet understanding in the Loss and Damage negotiation room that finances cannot be discussed without having a specific NCQG quantum in mind. Additionally, in the NCQG negotiation room there is a quiet understanding that the US cannot be making promises on annual financial commitments given the election results. Lastly, to add another layer to this, there is also an unspoken understanding that the pressure is on negotiators to make some substantial progress so that this year’s COP is not deemed a failure by the general public.

Observers are invited to these negotiation spaces to make interventions – however, parties have been content with letting the unspoken conflicts go unaddressed. The interventions from parties have typically followed the format of thanking the chair for moderating, reiterating the importance of Loss and Damage and the progress made in ‘huddles’ and using that as a starting point. None of these points give a useful entry point for observers to make interventions. Moreover, it does call into question the effectiveness of these ‘public’ negotiations if the compromises are made in late-night or early-morning huddles, away from the public eye. Additionally, these huddles are not crossing the binary – Annex 1 countries have yet to huddle with non-Annex 1 countries. This lack of substantial progress in week 1 is frustrating to see, given that the major challenges of negotiating the quantum, contributor base and fund allocation have all been put aside for week 2 and even then there are still matters to be negotiated before we get to those big 3 goals.

It is also apparent that this method of skirting around the conflict is starting to show cracks. An example of this was at the end of week 1, where parties were asked to draft a negotiation text for Loss and Damage for week 2. The Annex 1 countries kept the focus on finance vague which drew the ire of the Africa Group, who expressed their concern that if not done now, time would be wasted in discussing finance items to be negotiated. A back-and-forth happened between the Africa Group and the European Union where both parties reiterated their points, albeit in separate manners every time, and failed to reach a consensus by the end of the meeting, which really drew the frustration of Kenya who requested for parties to stay back until they could reach a consensus. I do believe all negotiators want to come away with at least one tangible outcome on climate finance – a concrete NCQG quantum, an operationalized Loss and Damage fund or a bolstered Adaptation fund. However, there is a larger conflict at play between the receding timeline and the general theme of conflict aversion that may lead to some sparks in week 2.

Without the intention to even scratch the surface of countries’ external and internal agendas for attending COP, I’ll share my reflections and impressions within the very limited time I was exposed to COP.

Currently, there are 198 Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That includes all 193 UN members, two eligible non-member states (the Cook Islands and Niue), Holly See (Vatican), the State of Palestine, and the European Union. When I listened to some of the opening statements by heads of delegations, heads of state, or their representatives, two countries called for the inclusion of Taiwan (Tuvalu and Eswatini). Notably, some other may have also called but I’ve heard only some twenty five opening statements. With an overarching theme of tackling climate change, each country also has its personal agenda directly linked to climate or having nothing to do with it.

The USA, despite the election results, is leading the way on many fronts. Primarily due to being the largest economy and housing the world’s most influential companies, timing one little switch in packaging, fuel type, or operation procedures can have more impact than getting a small country to net zero. As we learned from one of the generous US briefings, this year’s COP isn’t relaxed and surely not ‘laid back.’ The atmosphere is far from: ‘It doesn’t matter as the leadership will change within a few months.’ On the contrary, the delegates are all hands on deck to get done as much as possible.

As to the country where I was born, Ukraine is approaching 1000 days after the full-scale russian invasion, and the climate agenda is tightly linked with the agenda of peace and the country’s very existence. War, amidst human lives, takes a heavy toll on nature. Ukraine has the most landfill-mined content in the world, with 7% of arable agricultural land being unused as it lies along the frontlines. On the technical side, who is responsible for the carbon emission of the flight from Beijing to Warsaw or Stockholm that now has to travel extra miles due to the ongoing russian aggression? The answer is the same as the climate justice answer: polluters pay, or in other words aggressor pays. Despite the war, Ukraine not only had a pavilion for the third time but also announced its long-term low carbon emissions strategy until 2050.

Overall, more than 65,000 delegates had registered to attend the conference. This makes this year’s COP second in size after the last year in Dubai and bigger compared to notable COPs such as Copenhagen in 2009 and Paris in 2015. The goals for countries to be a part of COP are multidimensional, and only a few veterans of international negotiation have the experience to give an approximate estimate of a country’s goal, especially the most impactful players. With the class, we were lucky enough to meet one of these veterans, Stephen Hammer, the CEO of New York Climate Exchange and ex-negotiator, who, while we spoke for over an hour in the middle of the COP corridors, pointed to a half dozen of people summarizing their negotiation achievements.

To conclude, the COP is sizeable with countless events and agendas, yet when one focuses on either getting a brief understanding of everything or going deeper into one topic, things become easier. Check other blogs for more!

The Pakistan Pavilion at COP29 was a pivotal venue for discussing climate resilience, energy transition, and the importance of climate finance. On November 14th, 2024, during the session ‘Acumen’s Climate Action Fund for Pakistan’, global leaders gathered to discuss how private sector solutions, especially in agriculture and agribusiness, could address Pakistan’s climate vulnerability. The event featured influential speakers such as Muhammad Aurangzeb, Pakistan’s finance minister, Jacqueline Novogratz, Founder of Acumen, Henry Gonzalez, Chief Investment Officer of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and Kristen Sarri from USAID, who all emphasized the urgent need for innovative climate action in frontier markets like Pakistan.

Dr. Ayesha, Pakistan’s Country Director at Acumen, announced the launch of the Acumen Climate Action Pakistan Fund (ACAP), the country’s first climate fund. The fund is designed to improve climate resilience for vulnerable agricultural communities, particularly smallholder farmers who make up 90% of the country’s agricultural workforce. The fund aims to provide patient capital to agribusinesses, building climate adaptation solutions to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events and rising temperatures. This initiative, with a $80 million goal, is supported by technical assistance (of $10 million) from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and partnerships with USAID. It is expected to directly benefit 13 million lives, including farmers, by providing critical resources and financial support to increase resilience to climate change.

Henry Gonzalez from the GCF highlighted the international funding body’s role in supporting such ventures. Over the past years, GCF has invested more than $13 billion into over 240 projects worldwide, with a focus on strengthening the resilience of vulnerable countries. The GCF’s investment in Pakistan includes the ACAP Fund, marking a significant milestone in Pakistan’s climate finance journey. The GCF aims to increase its financial mobilization to $50 billion by 2030, involving more private sector partnerships to address the structural solutions needed for climate adaptation.

A key theme during this session was the collaboration between public and private sectors to leverage financial resources for climate action. Kristen Sarri, Acting Chief Climate Officer at USAID, discussed how USAID’s Climate Finance for Development Accelerator (CFDA) is accelerating climate investments. With a target of mobilizing $2.5 billion by 2030, CFDA’s initiative aims to connect investors, donors, and communities to generate large-scale capital flows for climate projects in countries like Pakistan.

The dialogue between Jacqueline Novogratz and Pakistan’s Finance Minister also explored the catalytic role of private sector investments in Pakistan’s energy transition and climate resilience efforts. As one of the top ten countries most vulnerable to climate change, Pakistan faces significant challenges in adapting to environmental shocks, with agriculture being particularly susceptible. However, through strategic investments, including solar irrigation systems and innovative agribusiness models, the country can not only build resilience but also unlock sustainable economic opportunities for the private sector to capitalize on.

In line with these efforts, the ‘Catalyzing Pakistan’s Energy Transition’ session on November 15, 2024, focused on transforming Pakistan’s energy sector, which is heavily reliant on fossil fuels. Pakistan’s energy sector struggles with load shedding, high capacity costs from costly power purchase agreements, and circular debt, which hampers efficiency and financial stability. Dr. Khalid Waleed from SDPI highlighted the urgent need to transition from coal to renewable energy in order to reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels and mitigate environmental harm. Furthermore, Pakistan’s carbon-intensive energy grid could face significant consequences under the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). This policy imposes carbon tariffs on imports from countries with high emissions, meaning that Pakistan’s exports could become less competitive in the global market unless the country reduces its reliance on fossil fuels. Pakistan’s grid is 1.4 times more carbon-intensive than the EU’s, putting key sectors like cement, iron & steel, and fertilizers at risk of higher tariffs. To address these issues, Pakistan must accelerate its energy transition, focusing on export-led growth, renewable energy adoption, and reducing reliance on carbon-heavy industries.

Experts, including Dr. Rishikesh Bhandary from Boston University, discussed the early retirement of coal plants as a key strategy, which could also generate carbon credits. These credits, through the global carbon market, could fund clean energy projects, helping Pakistan meet its Paris Agreement goals. This presents an opportunity for Pakistan to reduce its carbon footprint and embrace a sustainable energy future. The country’s young fleet of coal plants, which continue to incur high operational costs due to underutilization, could be repurposed for renewable energy investments. This strategy aligns with the broader regional goal of reducing emissions, as seen in the Green Climate Fund’s support for initiatives in South Asia. Pakistan’s growing renewable energy potential, coupled with carbon credit incentives, offers a unique opportunity to integrate climate action with economic development.

Sardar from the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA) introduced the Prime Minister’s Fan Replacement Program, aimed at replacing outdated, energy-inefficient fans with high-efficiency models in both industrial and residential sectors. Fans are major electricity consumers, especially during peak summer months, and upgrading to more efficient models will help reduce consumption and alleviate pressure on the national grid. The program features an innovative On-Bill Financing Mechanism, allowing consumers to pay for new fans through their electricity bills. This trade-off, where payments previously spent on high energy bills are redirected to repaying the loan for fans, offers long-term benefits. The initiative aligns with NEECA’s 2030 goals of saving 9 MTOE in energy and reducing 35 MTCO2 in emissions, contributing to significant financial and environmental benefits for Pakistan’s energy efficiency targets.

A way forward includes strategies like the ‘Just Energy Transition Working Group’, the development of a ‘National Integrated Energy-Economics Plan’, and ‘P2X Alliances’ to drive industrial growth powered by renewable energy. By adopting cleaner energy solutions and reducing carbon emissions, Pakistan can not only enhance its global competitiveness but also contribute to long-term economic sustainability.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s climate agenda at COP29 underscored the interconnectedness of climate finance, energy transition, and resilience building. The discussions highlighted the country’s potential to lead the way in climate adaptation and sustainable development, while addressing the urgent challenges of energy inefficiency and environmental degradation. Through continued partnerships, financial innovations, and a focus on long-term solutions, Pakistan can pave the way for a more resilient, sustainable, and climate-resilient future.

The negotiations around the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance at COP29 underscore the intricate balancing act required to address global climate needs equitably. As countries debate ambitious targets, one thing is clear: the NCQG must be more than a number. It must be a transformative framework that reflects the realities of climate vulnerabilities and developmental aspirations of developing countries.

Bridging Climate and Development

Developing nations, particularly those represented by the G77 and China, emphasize that the NCQG must align with the principles of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR). With a proposed target of $1.3 trillion annually, the NCQG aspires to address the scale of needs. However, it’s not just the quantum but the quality of finance that matters. Many developing countries, including AOSIS and LDCs, call for grant-based financing to avoid exacerbating debt burdens. Climate finance must not force nations to choose between climate action and economic development.

Countries like Kenya highlight the inadequacies of previous goals, such as the $100 billion commitment, which fell short in addressing transparency, accessibility, and double-counting issues. They stress that NCQG should be additive, predictable, and grant-based, ensuring climate finance does not perpetuate historical inequities or foster dependency on non-concessional instruments.

Addressing Loss and Damage

A recurring theme in these discussions is the inclusion of loss and damage. Vulnerable nations such as Nepal and Bangladesh, facing devastating climate impacts like floods and glacial melts, emphasize the importance of grant-based finance specifically allocated to loss and damage. These funds must be additional and distinct, reflecting the unique challenges posed by irreversible climate impacts.

The debate on regional allocation floors also gains traction. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), with their unique vulnerabilities, call for specific minimum allocations, arguing that lumping all developing nations under a single target risks underrepresenting the dire needs of high-risk groups.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency remains a cornerstone of the NCQG framework. Past experiences have shown that the lack of accountability in climate finance flows erodes trust. Developed nations must commit to robust annual progress updates and ensure that all finance is clearly delineated between grants, loans, and other instruments. Countries like Paraguay and the Gambia advocate for frameworks that ensure grant-based finance is prioritized, with no room for mechanisms that perpetuate fossil fuel dependencies.

Expanding the Contributor Base: A Contentious Debate

One of the most polarizing issues is the question of expanding the contributor base. Developed nations, led by the EU and the US, push for broader participation. However, many developing countries staunchly oppose this, arguing it undermines CBDR principles enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Countries like Saudi Arabia and India caution against using NCQG to dilute historical responsibilities or shift burdens onto emerging economies.

A Path Forward

The NCQG’s success hinges on its ability to strike a balance: ambitious enough to meet global climate goals, yet equitable in its distribution and mechanisms. This means addressing critical thematic areas—mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage—while ensuring accessibility, transparency, and justice for vulnerable nations.

The road to finalizing the NCQG at COP29 is fraught with challenges, but it offers an opportunity to set a precedent. By prioritizing inclusivity, equity, and ambition, the NCQG can become a cornerstone of climate finance that genuinely supports sustainable development and resilience in the face of an escalating climate crisis.

As negotiations continue, all eyes are on how nations will bridge the gaps in ambition and equity, setting the tone for global climate action in the critical decade ahead.