Blogpost by the Council on Strategic Risks, December 2024.
The event’s start was marked by sharp divisions, including disputes over the agenda, temporary breakdowns in negotiations, a boycott by Papua New Guinea, and criticism of Baku’s conference leadership. Key agenda items included increasing climate finance for poor countries, advancing COP28’s pledge to transition away from fossil fuels, and building resilient food systems, all of which featured important security and geopolitical dynamics.
Climate Finance and Geopolitics
Many civil society organizations dubbed COP29 the “finance COP,” as it would decide how much developed countries would pledge to increase climate finance, called the “new collective quantified goal” (NCQG), to developing countries over the coming years. These negotiations ended with a new finance goal of at least $300 billion annually by 2025, tripling the previous goal of $100 billion annually. However, many developing nations voiced frustration and anger with this agreement, arguing it was far below the $1-1.5 trillion of estimated needs and failed to simplify the disbursement process. Their original demands set the NCQG at $1.3 trillion, a mark that the COP29 outcome now says could be met with supplementation of other cash flows. The agreement also failed to streamline the distribution process of these funds, making developing countries wary of whether they will receive enough finance and geopolitical tensions over the NCQG were palpable throughout negotiations.
Peace, Conflict, and Security
The NCQG was a largely missed opportunity to build resilience in fragile and conflict-affected settings (FCAS), supporting security and stability. Consistently, regions most vulnerable to climate change receive the least amount of climate finance. In 2022, the ten most fragile states received less than 1% of international climate finance. The money that is received primarily takes the form of loans, placing burdens on countries that are already struggling with high debt and the compounding risks of climate change and conflict. Many countries also lack awareness and preparedness in their national security sectors to adapt, mitigate, and respond to the impacts of climate change. However, efforts to earmark equitable climate finance for FCAS failed, with language weakening over the course of negotiations. In the end, the final NCQG text completely eliminated any language on conflict and fragility, making no mention or recognition of the challenges faced by FCAS in accessing climate finance.
The Energy Transition and Strategic Competition
November 15th was “Energy Day” at COP29, highlighting China’s strength in the geopolitics of the clean energy transition. In particular, China announced energy production beginning at a new 1.78-terawatt state-owned offshore floating solar park, the largest and first of its kind. This initiative is no surprise as China continues to recognize the economic benefits of its investments in clean energy. With US investment in clean energy in question, China is further solidifying its role as the global leader in clean energy investments and reaping diplomatic gains from clean-energy investments in Africa, South-East Asia, and elsewhere. The US election also hung-over conversations about energy security and commitments from subnational actors across the United States were voiced clearly at COP29.
Food Security
Food security has not historically held a high seat at the table of COPs, but last year’s conference in Dubai sparked conversations on the ways food systems interact with climate and security. Accordingly, COP29 featured a dedicated UN Food Systems Coordination Hub and a thematic day on “Food, Agriculture and Water.” Heavy hitters like the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) are increasingly discussing the ways food, climate, and conflict interact. Director-general of the FAO, Qu Dongyu, highlighted this nexus.
“Building and financing resilient agrifood systems in fragile and conflict-affected areas addresses climate and food crises and saves the lives and livelihoods of millions of people,”
Every year, the impact of the climate COP is widely discussed, with many lamenting about the frustratingly slow processes and marginal gains. COP29 delegates left Baku with unresolved critical issues even as the World Meteorological Organisation signaled we are beginning to breach the 1.5-degree threshold set out in The Paris Agreement. However, more and more conversations on the global stage are recognizing the ways in which food systems, national security, humanitarian response, geopolitics, gender, and human rights are all intertwined with the climate crisis.
These are extracts from a blogpost written by Noah Fritzhand and Anna Spear for the Council on Strategic Risk website, December 2024. The original blogpost can be accessed via the link here.