Baku Climate Conference Concludes with New Financial Target Amidst Minimal Consensus and Near Disaster

A consensus was achieved at the UN Climate Conference in Baku after extended negotiations, mandating industrialized nations to increase climate financing for developing countries to $300 billion annually by 2035. Participants called for a total of $1.3 trillion, including private sector contributions, though specific responsibilities remain undefined. The agreement emphasizes emission reduction measures but lacks a fossil fuel phase-out commitment. Tensions arose during discussions, highlighting the divide between developing and industrialized nations amid criticisms of the host country’s approach and the involvement of key players.

Compromise Reached at the UN Climate Conference

Late on Sunday night, nearly 39 hours past the anticipated deadline, a consensus was finally reached at the UN Climate Conference in Baku. Member countries agreed that industrialized nations must increase their financial support to developing countries, facilitating their transition to renewable energy and addressing potential environmental crises.

Under this agreement, industrialized countries are now tasked with ramping up climate financing for developing nations to $300 billion annually by 2035. Moreover, nations like China and those in the Gulf region, categorized as developing countries by the UN, are urged to make contributions as well.

However, participants recognized that this funding goal is insufficient. They have called for a broader definition of “all actors,” which includes the private sector, to elevate total financing to a minimum of $1.3 trillion in both public and private resources by 2035. Yet, the agreement does not outline specific responsibilities for these contributions.

The final agreement also emphasizes that the financial target must be paired with “meaningful and ambitious” measures for emission reductions and adaptation. Notably, this year’s document does not include a commitment to phase out fossil fuels, a departure from last year’s agreement in Dubai.

The financial commitment emerged as the focal point of this year’s climate summit, superseding a previous agreement from 2009 that set the yearly support at $100 billion for developing nations.

Wopke Hoekstra, the chief negotiator for the EU, expressed his approval of the new targets, stating, “This climate conference has established an ambitious yet realistic framework.” Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, remarked, “No nation got everything it desired; we leave Baku with substantial work ahead of us.”

Despite this progress, many delegates voiced dissatisfaction with the outcomes. An Indian negotiator criticized the Azerbaijani leadership for not adequately considering the concerns of developing countries, earning a strong round of applause from the audience. Sabine Minninger, a climate researcher with the NGO Bread for the World, noted that developing nations felt compelled to agree to a deal that did not adequately address their urgent needs to preserve global climate diplomacy.

Tensions During Negotiations

On Friday, the financial goal initially proposed was set at $250 billion starting in 2035, which developing countries deemed alarmingly low, prompting threats to withdraw from the conference. Activists echoed the sentiment, asserting that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

By Saturday, tensions escalated as two groups—representatives from small island nations and the least developed countries—exited the discussions, dissatisfied with the concessions from industrialized nations. However, it was later clarified that this departure was a strategic protest rather than an exit for travel. Jiwoh Emmanuel Abdulahi, Sierra Leone’s energy minister, reaffirmed that developing countries remained open to a “fair deal,” leading to continued negotiations and eventual resolution.

Annual climate conferences demand immense perseverance from participants. A quorum is only achieved when two-thirds of members are present, and a final agreement requires consensus among all attending nations. Typically, negotiators enter discussions with high expectations, striving for a compromise.

This year’s negotiations were particularly tumultuous, highlighting the stark divide between the interests of developing and industrialized nations. Developing countries pushed for a substantial financial commitment, advocating for a tenfold increase to over a trillion dollars annually, citing the historical role of industrialized nations in generating wealth through fossil fuels.

In response, industrialized countries, including Germany and Switzerland, acknowledged the significant support needs of developing nations but deemed the proposed one trillion dollars annually as unattainable within their national budgets. They urged for a broader pool of donor nations, insisting that countries like China and the Gulf states, which have seen economic growth and are now major CO2 emitters, should also contribute.

The Chinese delegation appeared to seek a middle ground, signaling a willingness to quantify their voluntary climate financing contributions to developing nations for the first time while still aiming to retain their status as a developing country, which garners support from the global south.

Challenges from Key Players

Throughout the negotiations, diplomats faced significant hurdles. Reports from negotiators indicated that Saudi Arabia obstructed several proposals that had taken years to develop. In some instances, the Saudi delegation did not attend meetings, leading to frustration. Catherine McKenna, head of a UN expert group on climate, voiced her dissatisfaction, stating, “I am fed up with Saudi Arabia’s resistance to any proposal aimed at transitioning away from fossil fuels.” German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock accused the Gulf states of engaging in geopolitical tactics that jeopardize the poorest nations.

Frustration also arose in response to Azerbaijan’s role as the host nation. Many negotiators felt Azerbaijan lacked the necessary experience to navigate the complexities of negotiations effectively. Wopke Hoekstra, leading the EU delegation, repeatedly urged Azerbaijan to adopt a more assertive leadership stance.

The backdrop of the conference was further complicated by political tensions. NGOs had criticized Azerbaijan as the venue for the summit, pointing out that the country’s wealth is derived from fossil fuels, which constitute 90 percent of its exports. President Ilham Aliyev’s opening remarks, in which he referred to oil and gas reserves as a “gift from God,” added to the criticism. His comments included a controversial attack on France, referencing alleged abuses by President Macron’s administration, leading to a reduction in the French delegation’s presence in Baku.

Argentina’s President Javier Milei ordered his negotiation team to return to Buenos Aires during the first week, sparking concern among observers that he may be signaling a withdrawal from global climate diplomacy. He is not alone in this sentiment, as Donald Trump has previously indicated intentions to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, a move he executed during his first term, which was later reversed by Joe Biden. While the American delegation participated in Baku, they maintained a restrained position in negotiations, with chief negotiator John affirming, “Efforts to mitigate climate change remain a commitment in the USA.”

Related Articles