COP29 presidency slammed as ‘deplorable’ in the homestretch of finance negotiations

As the annual climate change negotiations enter their final days with countries still deeply divided over key issues, Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault blamed host country Azerbaijan for the disappointing options on the table. 

“The lack of ambition from the presidency so far is deplorable,” Guilbeault told Canada’s National Observer Thursday evening. With over 90 per cent of Azerbaijan’s exports being oil and gas — a sector representing nearly half of its GDP — the country is a “petrostate,” he said, offering one possible reason why countries remain far from a deal to help finance an energy transition away from fossil fuels. 

It’s not the first time UN climate summits have been hosted in states with significant oil and gas interests, and Guilbeault was quick to note last year’s summit in the United Arab Emirates was the first time in three decades of climate negotiations that countries committed to reducing dependency on fossil fuels. 

“So I think it is possible to have ambitious agreements regardless of where [COPs] happen, but there needs to be a willingness on the part of the presidency and the host country to be looking out for the interests of the commons, and not their self-interest,” he said. “And I'm not saying that's what the current presidency is doing, but they haven't shown the type of leadership we've come to expect from a country that is hosting a COP.”

Guilbeault said a climate finance proposal laid out by the COP29 presidency to help poorer countries address climate change missed the mark. The proposal lacks ambition, and doesn’t distinguish between finance to cut emissions or adapt to warming, leaving countries struggling to advance negotiations without clarity on what exactly they’re trying to achieve. 

The litmus test for success at COP29 is whether or not countries can agree to a new climate finance package. The deal would involve wealthy countries providing money to poorer countries to reduce emissions and adapt to warming — a crucial step, experts say, to accelerate global efforts to avert catastrophic climate breakdown. But despite the recognized need for finance, the negotiations are fierce given trillions of dollars are at stake. Questions of which countries should pay into the fund, which countries should be prioritized to receive the cash, how much money should be raised and how it should be spent are all hotly debated issues, making it difficult to determine if a workable agreement is possible with only days remaining before delegates leave Baku.

Guilbeault appeared to support calls from developing countries that the new climate finance package should aim to provide $1.3 trillion each year beginning in 2035. But, for Canada the issue is less about the total dollar target, and more about how much of that cash is expected to come from public coffers versus the private sector. 

Using public dollars to “leverage” private sector investment is “how we’ll get to $1.3 trillion,” he said. “We won't get to $1.3 trillion with just public money. Not happening. Not on the table.”

“I would rather have no agreement right now than a bad agreement,” he said.

Catherine Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub and member of Canada’s Net Zero Advisory Body told Canada’s National Observer it’s notable for a developed country like Canada to talk about how to achieve the $1.3 trillion goal called for by developing countries. But, she said to help advance the negotiations, Canada can’t just focus on the private sector or multilateral development banks. It has to put up a lot more cash itself.

“Traditional donors like Canada have to be willing to put a figure on the table that they're accountable to deliver, in public finance, in a way that does not subject developing countries to crushing debt,” she said. 

In recent weeks, Abreu says observers have seen a lot of flexibility from both developed and developing countries on the climate finance negotiations, suggesting “parties are ready to make a deal.” But, the options put forward by Azerbaijan have been divisive, lacked proposals to bridge differences, and largely failed to take into account feedback from countries, she said. 

On Friday, after being slammed by all sides for an unambitious climate finance proposal, Azerbaijan put a new offer on the table for wealthy countries to provide $250 billion by 2035 — a number civil society groups lambasted as “an insult.”  

In a call from Baku, Julie Segal, senior program manager for climate finance with advocacy group Environmental Defence, said $250 billion in ten years’ time is a step backwards from the status quo. 

“Climate damages have been getting worse, the need to invest in decarbonization is getting stronger, and we all know that a dollar today does not go as far as it used to,” she said. 

In 2009, wealthy countries agreed to provide $100 billion by 2020 to developing countries to pay for climate action. Using the International Monetary Fund’s world inflation rate forecasts, Segal calculated that $100 billion in 2009, when adjusted for inflation, is expected to be worth more than $250 billion by 2035. In other words, Friday’s offer represents less money than countries agreed to 15 years ago, when projected damages from climate change were significantly less. 

“That’s totally unacceptable,” she said. “Climate action needs to be collaborative and that requires financing on the table. So this offer is stingy.”

Harjeet Singh, global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, called it a “disgrace” for developed countries to propose $250 billion per year. 

“To add insult to injury, this paltry sum includes loans and lacks the crucial commitment to grant-based finance, which is essential for developing nations to both address climate impacts and transition away from fossil fuels,” he said. "The trust has been shattered; developing countries must stand firm. 

“Rejecting this is a stand for dignity — no deal is better than a bad deal, especially when it disrespects those bearing the brunt of a crisis they did not create."