Page 9 of 74

Can We Finance Peace and Security at COP29?

Walking through the halls at COP29, I can feel the intensity of delegates and activists who are laser-focused on finance. Acknowledging the immense financial resources needed to confront climate change, the focus on finance feels both promising and daunting. It raises the stakes but also underscores the gaps we still have to bridge.

COP29 has increasingly been dubbed the “Finance COP,” with a strong focus on setting a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) for climate finance. Since day one, the priority has been pushing for an ambitious climate finance agreement. Amid yet another record-breaking year of global heat and extreme weather events, UN Executive Secretary Simon Stiell urged this year’s negotiations to prioritize a robust climate finance deal for the well-being of all nations. The negotiations are complicated by a trillion-dollar funding need, differing national agendas, and the backdrop of the U.S. election. Regardless, it’s clear that finance is the key to unlocking climate solutions, especially for vulnerable countries that have long called for more support. As we push for climate finance at COP29, I find myself asking: will we prioritize building not just new infrastructure, but also the resilience and peace needed to sustain it?

During the second and third days of COP29, national leaders delivered their statements outlining their climate priorities. As I listened to the speeches, I was struck by how few leaders addressed the critical links between climate, peace, and security. Out of 78 statements delivered by heads of state, only about 10% explicitly linked climate issues to peace and security concerns. These included remarks from countries such as Poland, Jordan, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Yemen, and Sudan. For many countries, climate action isn’t just about reducing emissions, it’s about preventing conflict and creating stability. In other delivered statements, some countries mentioned peace and security concerns but did not directly link them to climate. For instance, the EU talked about the various countries currently active in the war and that the Paris Agreement should be a peace treaty with nature. Additionally, Kenya, Liberia, and Jordan were among the countries that highlighted displacement as climate-related with the potential to drive conflict. 

The growing evidence of climate impacts on peace and security cannot be ignored. Climate change intensifies resource competition, threatens livelihoods, and drives displacement, all of which can heighten tensions and lead to instability (UNDP, 2023). As we advocate for climate finance, we must recognize that effective solutions must promote environmental and social resilience. Climate finance should help build resilient communities, support peace and cooperation, and reduce pressures that contribute to conflict. I believe security and peace are indispensable to sustaining climate progress that has been made and that must continue to occur. 

As my time at COP29 is approaching a close, I’m hopeful. Yet, there is so much more work ahead. Finance alone won’t solve the climate crisis, but I hope this ‘Finance COP’ leads to a deeper, more integrated approach that views climate action as a pathway not just to resilience, but to sustained peace.

 

References:

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): Climate Promise. 2023. “What is climate security and why is it important?”

https://climatepromise.undp.org/news-and-stories/what-climate-security-and-why-it-important

Can COP29 handle the NCQG conundrum?

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29) started yesterday in Baku, Azerbaijan. COP29 is hoped to be a pivotal moment in terms of adopting new collective quantified goals (NCQG) on climate finance. NCQG is expected to be a primary reference in terms of mobilizing financial resources to address the increasingly unattainable Paris Agreement goals.

Just a few days ago, the UN Environment Programme released its latest Adaptation Gap report highlighting the need for a dramatically increase in adaptation efforts. The report informs us that global average temperature rise is approaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels while the latest predictions put the world on course for a catastrophic rise of 2.6-3.1°C this century unless there are immediate and major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions. In this regard, NCQG should include stronger adaptation components in the next round of nationally determined contributions. However, the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2024 report released by the Climate Policy Initiative identifies lagging adaptation finance as one of the persistent challenges across all economies alongside with a chronic investment gap in high-impact sectors and the danger of increasing investment in fossil fuels.

The discussions about inclusion of loss and damage funding constitute another layer of the problems regarding the quantum of the NCQG. The ad hoc work program on the NCQG on climate finance released in mid-October 2024 involves different proposals about the quantity and structure. It is a welcoming to see rising voices of supporting loss and damage funding. However, considering the prevalent idea that loss and damage funding should be based on grants, the identification of the contributors’ base creates another conundrum.

Loss and damage and adaptation funding have similar characteristics like public goods featured by upfront costs, long investment timeliness and lacking clear revenue streams. Thus, the primary motive for loss and damage funding is not financial gains or indirect financial benefits in the form of avoided costs as featured by adaptation funding. Loss and damage refers to the adverse observed economic and/or non-economic impacts and/or projected risks of climate change.

Given all these insights, a primary question still needs a prompt and actionable response: What should be primary criteria for identifying contributors to the loss and damage funding? Economic capability of countries (including advanced and developing economies), historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions, or any other factors? This question does not have a binary answer in nature. However, any choice of answers is constrained by domestic political factors, international geopolitical confrontations, and the risk of being ground for future legal obligations in climate finance provision.

In addition, the proportions of climate finance allocated among primary buckets, namely mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage funding also remain unsolved. One of the most recent estimations for loss and damage requires at least $724 bln while nearly all proposals for NCQG mentioned in the UNFCCC work programme are substantially less than these needs.

Climate change is a complicated problem that requires a middle ground between actionable policies, economic capabilities and responsibilities, along with scientific findings. It would also be altruistic to expect the current COP29 Presidency to solve NCQG conundrum and other climate issues among parties. However, COP29 is an opportunity to discuss all these issues and enable parties to align their divergent positions. Upcoming two weeks are crucial for global climate action; otherwise, the cost of inaction will be too late to fix for all parties.

Post-US Elections at COP29: Desperate Optimism and Disillusionment

The election permeated every event I went to. In response to media pessimism that the US elections would incapacitate COP negotiations were two primary (non-mutually exclusive) sentiments:

1. Desperate, relentless optimism. “The laggards must find the political will [to act]” was Executive Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia Yeb Saño’s response at Greenpeace’s press conference.
2. Disillusionment with national governments no matter who was in office, we just have to do it ourselves. Jacob Johns (Hopi and Akimel O’odham Tribes) acknowledged the lack of action even under Biden at the US CAN Wisdom Keepers press conference: “We call for our so-called progressive governments to stand up and create a path to leadership…if we looking at the left wing and right wing governments, we both know they are wings of the same bird.”

Both Climate Action Network (CAN) and the US Delegation took the first approach (they do not often see eye to eye): we are going to try to get as much done as possible, and we should not let the election results stop the progress that science requires.

At the CAN Communications team meeting, they presented crisis responses on rumors that Article 6 may be gavelled through at the opening plenary without following procedure and of course, the US election. They instructed us to respond to any reporter that asked about the US being a lame duck, “wait, so the US runs your country?” to encourage other countries to step up and urge the US to not obstruct negotiations they will likely not return to. After all, the US has never paid its fair share of finance for the past 30 years.

A Center for Biological Diversity press conference focused on ramping up US action in the next two months and not letting other countries hide behind US inaction. Specific durable actions called for were an OECD phase out of $41 billion of oil and gas financing, setting a roadmap for subnational governments to take leadership, packing the court, and shutting down pending projects like the Dakota Access pipeline. RINGO’s US Delegation briefing had much of the same desperate optimism, denouncing the “lame duck” idea but emphasizing how the US would still show up.

On the other hand, the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform Knowledge Sharing session emphasized the second, speaking of disillusionment of all administrations, as they feel they are left to fend for themselves no matter who’s in office. I had nice informal conversations with many others critical of COP and how disconnected and unimpactful it was on local organizing.

One such leader ranted to me about how grassroots aren’t funded anyway, and definitely not so by inaccessible complex global funds, so it did not really matter to him what the NCQG figure was. To him, a change would be to have any money available as many countries do not have the capacity to apply for funding or are discriminated against for corruption while COP29 itself is corrupt: “those that pollute are those setting the agenda.” Instead, grassroots and indigenous communities do the adaptation work themselves while projects are proposed by technical processes that are out-of-touch with local communities.

Other people I spoke with were more nuanced but had similar viewpoints on COP’s out-of-touchness with on-the-ground climate work. The fund figures are paltry and unseen by most communities, yet they require years of exhausting negotiations.

But then why did all of these people keep coming back to COP, if that was their sentiment? And their answer was always the same desperate optimism, that they have no option but to try to change the system even if they did not believe in it at all.

COP29: A Journey of Discovery and Collaboration on the First Day

We arrived in Azerbaijan last night (November 10th), and my first impression of Baku is wonderful. The streets are clean, and the architecture is impressive, featuring both modern and historic buildings. It feels safe to be outside even late at night, giving the city an energetic atmosphere.

For me, today was a day of exploration and observation. Over the past few months, we’ve taken many courses covering topics discussed at COP, from climate finance to adaptation and mobility. We also heard reflections from those who attended COP28. Most importantly, we participated in a negotiation exercise on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), where each student represented a country and stated its position. All of these experiences helped me form expectations for COP29 and understand what to look for. I’m especially excited to see how various stakeholders—including companies, national and regional leaders, and international organizations—address the climate crisis in real time. With that in mind, I approached this first day with an open and adaptable mindset, eager to take it all in.

On November 11, we arrived early (7 a.m.) to pick up our Blue Zone badges, then tried traditional Azerbaijani goghal, a delicious pastry recommended by our Azerbaijani guide, Azar. By around 9 a.m., most country pavilions were open, so we explored them. Many pavilions featured cultural decor and climate-related themes. For example, at the China pavilion, delegates dressed in traditional Ming Dynasty attire demonstrated calligraphy on folding fans. In the Azerbaijan pavilion, representatives wore traditional Azerbaijani clothing and shared cultural foods. At a pavilion for an Azerbaijani water institution, we saw displays of recycled water bottles collected from beaches. We also picked up souvenirs from various pavilions, such as a Singaporean pin with its national flower, Papilionanthe Miss Joaquim, and an adorable panda toy from the China pavilion.

After exploring the pavilions, we attended some keynote speeches and panels. One that stood out was Incofin Investment Management’s session on launching the Incofin Climate-Smart Microfinance Fund, which aims to invest USD 550 million in climate-smart activities to address the social impacts of climate change and reach 1.5 million people. According to Incofin’s co-CEO, the fund’s goal is to promote inclusive prosperity and support a sustainable transition with a focus on gender equality. The investment prioritizes low-income economies, women, and children, channeling resources towards vulnerable groups. In the panel discussion, I learned that Incofin’s private finance work has been impactful in addressing prioritized needs, though scaling investment remains a challenge. Incofin has been using data to demonstrate positive outcomes and returns to attract more stakeholders. It’s inspiring to see microfinance increasingly involved in climate action with a deeper understanding of its role.

In conclusion, the first day at COP29 was both inspiring and enlightening. Engaging with diverse stakeholders, experiencing cultural displays, and witnessing innovative financial solutions reinforced the importance of global collaboration in addressing climate challenges. I’m eager to continue learning, connecting, and exploring impactful solutions in the days to come.

Finding my Place at COP29

After nearly 24 hours of travel and a scant night of sleep, I was fueled by my last drops of adrenaline as we approached the entrance to COP29 in Azerbaijan. In preparing for the day, I had been optimistic about diving into meetings, learning about Article 6 negotiations, and engaging with eager members of civil society. In reality the day moved a bit slowly, with delegations, coalitions, and the event space itself using this time to prepare for the week ahead. Below are three first impressions from this day of commencement and continued preparation.

  1. It feels like IKEA

COP29 is being held in Baku Stadium, a sports arena currently retrofitted for this major climate convention. The stadium is parsed into large hallways, meeting rooms, and press spaces using temporary construction materials.

The pavilions – where each participating country creates a hub for information and events – feel like IKEA’s main showroom. Nations have set up their living rooms for the week in this large warehouse space. But instead of fluffy couches, each setup has four panelist chairs facing a handful of seats for a modest audience. As a bonus, many countries have set up interactive displays and small coffee bars along the perimeter. Some countries (like the United States) were yet to complete the construction of their pavilion space, while China and Japan immediately offered heavily-staffed and highly-interactive hubs.

  1. Space is limited and people are eager

Today’s main event was a plenary session in which the UN provided opening information on the upcoming negotiations for the week relating to the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. These opening sessions have earned fame for being the place of groundbreaking Day 1 announcements, such as the announcement of last year’s Loss and Damage Fund.

Attendees were clearly excited, and lines to get into the event space were long and chaotic. Security guards worked hard to maintain order as crowds tried to cram themselves through bottlenecked entrance areas. In the end, it appeared that most people (including myself) did not make it into this plenary session. It will be interesting to see if a lack of space plays a continued role in the upcoming two weeks of COP29.

  1. Side meetings are worth the time

At 9:00 am, I attended RINGO’s daily morning meeting. RINGO is the organization of research and independent NGOs represented at COP and stands as a neutral body throughout the negotiations, with its members providing advice to party members in an individual capacity. This meeting connected me with other students and academics tracking Article 6 negotiations and exposed me to a network of email lists and WhatsApp groups that would help provide access and information throughout the rest of the day (and the rest of the week). If nothing else, today’s engagement with RINGO was an extremely useful starting point in understanding how to navigate COP29 going forward.

As I look ahead to the rest of the week, I am curious to see how delegations at COP29 are able to address the highly consequential climate issues on the agenda. Will space constraints lead to negotiation delays? Will the United States’ lame duck delegation have a voice at the table? Will all delegations move with urgency given recent news of the earth’s 1.5 degree warming? I’m hopeful that the days to come show progress, cooperation, and understanding on the pressing issues that we have all traveled so far to discuss.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Duke to the UNFCCC

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑