Reflections on COP29’s climate finance goal

At 5:31am AZT on Sunday 24 November, COP29 closed with the adoption of a new, ten-year climate finance goal.

The outcome appears weak. Though the numbers are large — a tripling of the original goal to $300 billion per year by 2035, an even larger $1.3 trillion in scaled up financing — the language around accountability is extraordinarily vague. Who is actually responsible for delivering this money? Developed countries will “take the lead” on the $300B, which will come from a wide variety of sources (public and private). The 1.3T will involve “all actors” working together, kick-started with a “Baku to Belem Roadmap.”

Many developing countries are outraged about a closed and mismanaged consultation process they feel favored rich economies. Civil society, which protested through the extra days and final plenary, are marking the goal a failure. My sense is that the outcome reflects a deep-rooted stalemate: developing countries would not budge of expanding the contributor base. Developed would not budge on making commitments more concrete. The result is a fundamentally unchanged and unclear landscape of international climate finance.

But we have a goal. The question for me: what does it mean for adaptation finance? Prior to COP, I published a brief on what the goal “must-have” to ensure sufficient, effective, and equitable adaptation long-term (read it here). I did a quick analysis this morning to see how it stacks up.

On sufficiency of finance:
👎 Retains weak language on “balance” between adaptation and mitigation. Adaptation finance likely to continue to lag.
👉 Potential new goal in 2035 allows for revision based on updated projections.
👉 Acknowledges need for public, grant-based, and concessional resources for adaptation, but makes no concrete commitments.
👍 Emphasizes the importance of innovative instruments to scale up support.

On effectiveness:
👉 Calls for support for both national planning and locally-led initiatives, but overlooks the need to support global resilience building efforts. We need all three simultaneously for effective adaptation.
👍 Commits to tripling annual funding from UNFCCC mechanisms, funds that align best with national and local priorities in recipient countries.

On equitable allocation and access:
👉 Prioritizes funding for LDCs and SIDS, both in bilateral and multilateral financing, but does not set specific allocation floors. Allocation will be considered in follow up reporting.
👍 Urges increased funding for locally-led adaptation, and inclusion of local and climate-vulnerable communities.
👉 Recognizes the need for funding to reach women, Indigenous Peoples, and youth, but does not set targets.
👍 Calls on all actors to enhance access, simplify and harmonize procedures. Calls on UN Funds to expand Direct Access programs. Access will be considered in follow up reporting.