- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
More than 65,000 delegates have registered to attend the COP29 climate summit in Baku, Azerbaijan, potentially making it the second-largest COP on record.
This total is more than 15,000 lower than the record-breaking COP in Dubai last year – and marks the first time in seven years that a COP is not larger than its predecessor.
The figures are released amid reports that numerous world and industry leaders are skipping the summit, while Papua New Guinea has pulled its delegation out entirely.
Nonetheless, the size of the Baku summit still likely outstrips major COPs of the past, including Copenhagen, Paris and Glasgow.
COP29 host Azerbaijan has the largest delegation at the summit, with 2,229 people registered for badges. This is followed by Brazil (1,914) and Turkey (1,862) with the second and third-largest delegations, respectively.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), hosts of COP28 in Dubai, has the fourth-largest delegation (1,011) and China (969) has the fifth.
While China’s delegation is smaller than at COP28 (when it was 1,296), both summits have seen a much larger presence for the country. For the 10 COPs before COP28, China’s average delegation of named participants was around 100 people.
All aboard to Baku
COP28 in Dubai last year was the largest COP in an almost 30-year history of summits – by some distance. More than 83,000 people attended the summit in person, beating the previous record of around 50,000 set in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt the year before.
The total number of registered delegates for COP29 in Baku clocks in at 66,778 – falling between the totals of the previous two COPs. With 3,975 “virtual” participants, this takes the overall provisional delegate total for COP29 to more than 70,000.
As the chart below shows, this bucks the recent trend that has seen the size of COPs increase every year since the 16,000 participants that travelled to Bonn, Germany, for COP23 in 2017.
It is worth noting that these are provisional figures, based on the delegates that have registered for the summit. The UNFCCC will release the final figures – based on participants collecting a physical badge at the venue – after the summit has closed.
Overall totals for delegates from parties, observers and the media for all COPs, as published by the UNFCCC (see this article for more details on the data). Data for COPs 1-28 are the “final” figures, while COP29 data is “provisional”. Chart by Carbon Brief.
This group adds up to 17,680 delegates – second only to COP28 in Dubai.
At last year’s COP, the participant lists published by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – for the first time – named every single person that had registered for the summit (excluding support staff). Previously, COPs have typically included thousands of “overflow” participants in which countries and UN agencies could nominate delegates without their names appearing on their official lists.
The Baku summit continues this more transparent approach, providing spreadsheets that name all participants.
For consistency with Carbon Brief’s analysis of previous COPs, the above chart includes overflow delegates as a single group. However, the participant lists do divide the overflow delegates between parties and observer groups. Including the overflow numbers takes the total for party representatives to 33,158.
The next-largest group is that of observers from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which totals 9,881 delegates. This is the third-largest total in COP history (after the previous two COPs).
Along with the NGOs, there are several other groups that fall into the category of “observer organisations” – such as those participants representing UN bodies, intergovernmental organisations, other agencies and business representatives. These total 2,377 registered delegates – or 3,204 when overflow badges are included.
Finally, 3,575 media delegates have registered for COP29, a provisional total that is second only to COP3 in Kyoto in 1997.
Host lead
As is common at COP summits, the largest delegation at COP29 represents the host country. Azerbaijan has registered a delegation – including party overflow badges – of 2,229.
This is a far cry from Azerbaijan’s tiny delegations of the past. Before COP28 in Dubai, Azerbaijan’s delegation amounted to an average of six people.
The second-largest delegation comes from Brazil with 1,914 participants. Brazil typically brings one of the largest delegations and this year is no exception. A substantial delegation from Brazil was also likely considering they will be hosting COP30 next year.
(It is worth noting that some countries allocate some of their party badges to NGOs, which can artificially inflate the size of their official delegation.)
The third-largest delegation comes from Turkey (1,892), followed by UAE (1,011) and China (969). The rest of the top 10 comprises Russia (900), Indonesia (810), Nigeria (634), Japan (595) and Kazakhstan (478).
Just outside the top 10 is the UK in 11th (470), as well as the US (405) in 16th and Australia (394) in 19th.
Azerbaijan has seen the biggest increase in delegation size since COP28, increasing by 995 people. This is followed by Turkey (966 more) and Russia (448).
The smallest delegations belong to Niger and San Marino (two), Nicaragua (three), and Andorra and North Korea (five).
Unsurprisingly, the largest decrease in delegation size is for UEA (dropping by 3,148). Next is India (909) and France (649), while the US delegation has shrunk by 434.
Papua New Guinea has registered a delegation of 28, although prime minister James Marape announced back in August that the country would not be attending to “signal our protest at the big nations…for their lack of quick support to those who are victims of climate change, and those of us who are forest and ocean nations”.
Also, according to the provisional participant lists, Afghanistan has not registered a delegation. However, reports earlier this week suggested that Taliban officials will attend as observers. Therefore, their invitation from COP hosts Azerbaijan may have come outside the usual registration process.
The map and table below present the delegation size – split between party and overflow badges – for all the countries registered for COP29. The darker the shading, the more delegates that country has signed up. Use the search box to find the data for a specific party.
Gender split
The UNFCCC’s participant lists typically provide a title – such as Mr, Ms, Sr or Sra – for each registered delegate. In the past, this has allowed Carbon Brief to work out the balance of men to women in the delegations that each country has sent to a COP.
(This analysis always carries the caveat that the titles are designated by UNFCCC and not by Carbon Brief. In addition, Carbon Brief recognises that gender is not best categorised using a binary “male” or “female” label and appreciates that the UNFCCC’s lists may not be wholly accurate.)
However, since COP28 last year, the UNFCCC has started using other titles that do not indicate gender – such as Dr, Prof, Ambassador and Honourable. Therefore, for this analysis, these non-gendered titles – which make up around 150 names of more than 17,000 in the list of party delegates – have not been included.
This gives an average gender balance of party delegations of 60% male to 40% female.
As the chart below shows, this makes COP29 the most balanced COP in history. (Note that, for consistency, the COP28 and COP29 figures only include those on party badges, not overflow ones.
The average size of named party delegations (not including overflows) for each COP, divided by male (orange) and female (purple) participants. The lines show what percentage of the average delegation is male (orange) and female (purple). Data for COPs 1-28 collated from “final” participant lists published by the UNFCCC, while COP29 data is based on the “provisional” list. Note that 145 delegates in the COP29 provisional list are not included because there is no information on their gender. Chart by Carbon Brief.
There are two all-male party delegations this year – North Korea (five delegates) and Niger (two delegates).
In addition, this year, Carbon Brief’s analysis reveals that the gender balance across all registered delegates – both in-person and virtual – for COP29 is 59% male to 41% female.
The full list of COP29 party delegation sizes can be found here.
The post Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP29? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: Which countries have sent the most delegates to COP29?
Continue Reading
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.
The text states that other countries – including emerging economies – may “voluntarily assume” these obligations to pay. However, it adds that this list of developed countries “shall” be reviewed periodically and amended “if necessary”.
The list was last amended in 2006.
(See this “jargon buster” which explains the specific meaning and legal weight of various terms and verbs used in UN formal documents.)
Discussions around this fraught subject had reached a dead end at intersessional talks this year, but resurfaced in Yerevan.
The first “non-paper” had four different options for expanding the contributor base. These ranged from using the World Bank’s country income groups “as a proxy” to identify high-income countries, to commissioning a study on the impacts of being included on the list.
By 21 October, the number of options swelled to eight, including two from Saudi Arabia and one from Peru.
Some countries “expressed concern” that certain options were based on a CBD secretariat study on “what constitutes a developed country”, Earth Negotiations Bulletin reported.
By the end of the first week, it was clear that the finance deadlock would have to go into informal ministerial consultations for any consensus to emerge.
At a press conference on 28 October, Christopher O’Sullivan, Ireland’s nature minister and representing the EU delegation, told Carbon Brief:
“Our position isn’t that we want to pull back in terms of contributing…but it’s been 20 years since that list was added to, times have changed and there are new realities. We just simply want those new realities reflected. I don’t fully understand why there’s so much opposition to that.”
The EU chose not to comment on which countries it would like to see on that list.
Lim Li Ching from the Third World Network, meanwhile, called the push for others to “assume the obligations” of developed countries “sheer hypocrisy”, adding that any country could make a voluntary contribution. She told Carbon Brief:
“At a forum like the CBD, this linking of income status with finance does not take into account where historical and current responsibilities lie. If you want to generate more funding for biodiversity, let’s look at sovereign debt burdens and rules, which are inequitable for developing countries. But if you can fund wars, and provide resources for your defence industry, then you know where the priorities are.”
On 29 October – at a plenary meant to adopt final texts for the most contentious subjects – Norway’s Gaute Hanssen announced that resource-mobilisation discussions would go into a smaller “friends of the chair” meeting.
Facilitated