Rich nations agreed to channel at least $300 billion a year by 2035 for developing countries to ramp up climate action under a new finance goal adopted at the COP29 climate summit, after bad-tempered talks in which vulnerable countries pushed for a bigger slice of the pie.
The new goal, which kicks in after 2025, replaces the existing annual target of $100bn, which was met two years late in 2022 and is widely seen as insufficient to meet rocketing needs among poorer nations to shift to clean energy and adapt to extreme weather and rising seas.
The $300bn goal – with developed countries “taking the lead” in providing money and mobilising private-sector investment – will be at the core of a wider effort to scale up financing to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035 “from all public and private sources”.
UN climate chief Simon Stiell described the new finance goal as “an insurance policy for humanity, amid worsening climate impacts hitting every country”.
“This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives,” he said, warning that “like any insurance policy – it only works – if the premiums are paid in full, and on time.”
In the closing plenary of the two-week summit, some developing nations, including Cuba and India, expressed dissatisfaction with the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), criticising its “paltry size” and the weight given to funding from multilateral development banks. They said it does not respond to their requirements to grow sustainably and keep their people safe.
“The goal is too little. Too distant,” Chandni Raina, an adviser with India’s Ministry of Finance told the closing plenary. “The proposed goal shall not solve anything for us.”
Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, said her Pacific island state was leaving “with a small portion of the funding climate-vulnerable countries urgently need”. “It isn’t nearly enough, but it’s a start, and we’ve made it clear that these funds must come with fewer obstacles so they reach those who need them most,” she added.
“Tale of delivery”
But EU climate commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told the plenary that COP29 would be remembered “as a start of a new era for climate finance”, saying the EU believes “it is ambitious, it is needed, it is realistic and it is achievable. We are confident this will be a tale of delivery,” he added.
The agreement came after a day of drama as the COP29 talks in Baku ran overtime, with groups of the poorest nations and small island states staging a temporary walkout, raising fears that a deal would not be reached at the so-called “Finance COP”.
COP29 Bulletin Day 12: Carbon market rules adopted after walkout delays finance talks
Those vulnerable groups wanted to ensure they would get fixed amounts under the new goal, arguing they are hit hardest by the impacts of global warming and have the least resources to protect their people and go green. In the end, they compromised, settling for a process that will explore options to “design and implement” allocation floors for them.
Baku to Belem Roadmap
That effort will be part of a “Baku to Belem Roadmap to $1.3 trillion” that will look for “additional resources” to drive low-carbon, climate-resilient development and support the rollout of developed-country plans for cutting emissions and adapting to climate change.
This roadmap, which will be developed over the coming year leading up to the COP30 conference in Belem, Brazil, was put forward by the African Group, Barbados, Colombia, Honduras and Panama in Baku this week.
Details remain sketchy but Colombia’s environment minister Susana Muhamad referred to “innovative possibilities that our countries have been working on”. A taskforce co-led by France, Kenya and Barbados, for example, has been considering how to introduce levies on shipping, aviation, fossil fuels and financial transactions.
Win for China, Gulf states
The final COP29 deal on the new finance goal was a compromise between efforts by rich countries to limit the amount of additional government finance they will have to stump up – with many citing fiscal constraints – and the growing gap between funding and needs in climate-stressed parts of the world.
Developing countries rejected a strong push by wealthy governments to include their richer, more polluting members, especially China and Gulf nations, in the official donor base. The text only “encourages” developing countries to make contributions to the new finance goal “on a voluntary basis”.
Namibia uses COP29 climate summit to push for oil and gas investments
As the talks in Baku got dangerously close to ending without an agreement, the Azerbaijan presidency came in for sharp criticism for putting a proposed figure for the government-led core of the finance goal on the table too late.
It eventually did so on Friday, which should have been the final day of the two-week talks, with an initial suggestion of $250 billion a year provoking disappointment and anger from developing countries, who argued they were being forced to sacrifice their people.
Compromises
In the end, they settled for not much more in return for commitments to avoid worsening already high debt levels and easing access to funding, including from the UN’s dedicated climate funds. The text promises to pursue efforts to at least triple annual outflows from those funds from 2022 levels by 2030, rather than earmarking a percentage of the goal for them, as earlier proposed.
Developing countries also capitulated on demands for sub-goals to channel more money to under-funded work on adaptation, as well as repairing growing loss and damage from droughts, floods, storms and rising oceans. These sub-goals were left out of the agreed text.
Climate justice activists slammed the new goal for being far too low and failing to set a target that would prioritise grants over loans.
Champa Patel, executive director of governments and policy with the Climate Group, said $300bn a year “doesn’t even come close to the transformational finance needed to tackle the climate crisis”.
Don’t mention fossil fuels
As drama unfolded over finance, countries also adopted at COP29 a weakened decision on cutting carbon emissions, which failed to explicitly mention last year’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. A second text on mitigation was postponed to mid-2025, after it was also weakened by opposition from Saudi Arabia.
The adopted Mitigation Work Programme, a non-binding process meant to enhance climate mitigation, was adopted at the closing plenary. The adopted version fails to mention last year’s landmark decision to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, which it did include in earlier versions.
A second text meant to be the main outcome on cutting emissions in Baku did not reach consensus, after also getting weakened. The “UAE Dialogue” follows up on last year’s review of climate policies known as the Global Stocktake (GST) – the main decision from last year’s COP in Dubai.
The last version of the UAE Dialogue referenced “paragraph 28” of the UAE consensus, where the fossil fuel transition was included, but the text falls short of explicitly mentioning the landmark pledge to reduce fossil fuels.
Instead, the latest draft reaffirmed the role of “transitional fuels” also mentioned in last year’s GST, which experts interpreted to mean fossil gas among other technologies.
Saudi Arabia successfully blocked any fossil fuel language at COP29, after their negotiators said at a plenary session on Thursday that they would “not accept any text that targets any specific sectors including fossil fuel”. The Saudi government has also blocked this in other major environmental summits, among them the biodiversity COP16 and the G20.
In the last draft, the COP29 presidency also removed two proposals to expand energy storage capacity to 1,500 gigawatts by 2030 and to add 25 million km of power grids by 2030. Both would have been new targets building on the decision to triple renewable energy capacity by the same date.
At the closing plenary, several country groups expressed their disappointment with the text and said they could not accept it in its current form.
“We are concerned to see attempts to backtrack the agreements made last year,” said Chilean lead negotiator Julio Cordano. “The text does not enjoy consensus”.
“We made historic commitments a year ago, including to transition away from fossil fuels. We came here to translate that commitment into meaningful action, and quite simply, we have fallen short,” said a delegate from Canada.
In the end, COP president Mukhtar Babayev opted to defer the text until next year, when countries will review the process again in mid-year talks in Bonn. A final decision is expected at COP30.
The UAE Dialogue was one of the key agreements meant to inform the upcoming round of new nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Most of them will now have to make progress without an explicit mandate from the COP.
As COP29 came to a close, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said in a statement that he “had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance and mitigation – to meet the great challenge we face. But this agreement provides a base on which to build,” he added.
(Reporting and editing by Megan Rowling, Joe Lo and Sebastian Rodriguez)
The post Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest appeared first on Climate Home News.
Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest
Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.
For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.
While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.
After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.
COP president: Results beat expectations
An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.
“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.
Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.
-
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say
Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.
An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.
WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.
‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies
In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.
They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures.
The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.
It also urges the over 60 countries who have not submitted a biodiversity plan yet to finalise them “as soon as possible” and taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.
Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.
Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.
“Timid” steps to expand base of donors
Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.
During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.
Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.
Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.
Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said during one of the sessions that her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, also noted their dissatisfaction but said it had expected “a lot less”.
The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.
In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.
Cali Fund still not operational
Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.
The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.
But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.
Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.
“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.
The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of 120 “plans to accelerate solutions”.
COP30 roadmaps off the cuff
Meanwhile, as the formal negotiations drew to a close, it was clear that consensus decision-making was evolving into something a little more improvised.
With only around half of all countries on board with the idea of a roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels, COP30 President André Corrêa do Lago announced his team would put one together over the coming year, along with another on how to meet a global goal to halt deforestation by 2030. Those roadmaps will be launched next week, presented and discussed at COP31, though it’s still unclear whether or how they’ll be incorporated into the formal negotiating agenda.