Get Free Solar Panel Quotes
Find out how much solar panels would cost you
Do you need solar panels for your home or business? Fill in our form - Get a free quote - Start saving on energy bills
Why get solar panels?
  • Generate free, green electricity
  • Reduce your electricity bill by up to 64%
  • Get paid for what you don't use

‘Totally unacceptable’: Developing nations slam COP29 deal

Maximilian Schwerdtfeger
Written By
Published on 27 November 2024
  • Governments of small island nations say UN deal won’t save the planet
  • Carbon credits are “neo-colonialism”, critics say
  • UN defends deal but concedes poor nations are unhappy
Delegates at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, November 2024 – pic credit: Flickr/COP29

The $300 billion finance plan agreed at COP29 will not be enough to help poor and developing countries fight climate change, according to government ministers and delegates. 

The annual UN meeting, held this year in Azerbaijan’s capital, Baku, ended with a controversial agreement that will see richer nations pay $300 billion (about £238.5 billion) a year to help poorer regions fight climate change.

However, the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) agreed at COP29 is a long way short of the $1.3 trillion that some had called for, and even less than the $500 billion that had been cited as the bare minimum developing countries would accept. 

The NCGQ will see 23 of the largest economies in the world pay the sum of $300 billion between them to those most badly affected by climate change. Among the wealthier countries are the UK, Japan, the US and those in the EU. 

The agreement was reached 24 hours beyond the official deadline after several countries, including those in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and some African states, threatened to leave without an agreement at all. 

The AOSIS have been scathing about the agreement reached at COP29
AOSIS delegation speaking at COP29

Despite accounting for less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, small island developing states are suffering disproportionately. About 65 million people live on small island developing states. 

It is estimated that between 1970 and 2020, small island developing states lost about $153 billion (£121.3 billion) due to climate change and weather-related problems, including cyclones and rising sea levels. 

This is a particularly alarming figure as the average annual GDP for small island and developing states is $13.7 billion (£10.8 billion). 

Following the deal, AOSIS said it was “concerned” by the “lack of willingness to meet the needs of vulnerable developing countries”. 

Central to the criticism is that the NCQG will allow wealthier countries, those responsible for most global emissions, to avoid helping nations which suffer the most from climate change. 

Reacting to the agreement, the African Group of Negotiators described it as “too little, too late”. 

Amb Ali Mohamed, Kenya’s Special Envoy, was particularly scathing, describing the agreement as “totally unacceptable and inadequate” and predicted that it will lead to “loss of life in Africa and around the world”.

The Indian delegation were quoted as being “extremely disappointed”. Chandni Raina, an advisor with India’s Department of Economic Affairs, said in a speech at the end of the summit that the NCGQ was “a paltry sum” and “not something that will enable conducive climate action”. 

“We are disappointed in the outcome which clearly brings out the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfill their responsibilities. We cannot accept it.”

Fiji is one of the small island nations under threat from climate change
Fiji is one of the small island nations under threat from climate change

Charan Jeet Singh, Fiji’s sugar minister, part of a 55-strong Fijian delegation, called for a fundamental change in the types of attendees at future climate summits and for , saying most delegates as a “financial burden to their respective countries” who are “wasting time”.

“In future we need to send a very lean team of professionals, experts and negotiators who are objective and can deliver their hard and clear message to COP30 come next year,” Singh explained.

Another member of the Fijian delegation was quoted describing the COP29 negotiations as “a very tedious process”. 

Commonwealth Secretary-General, Rt Hon Patricia Scotland KC, said in her address to COP29 that she would continue to push for finance, to help small island states in their fight for climate justice:  

“The fight against climate change is the fight of our lives,”

Reacting to the backlash against the NCQG, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, said budgets in wealthier nations were badly affected by inflation and said poorer and developing nations would have to compromise. 

Environmental bodies have joined the criticism describing the deal as “woefully inadequate” and accused wealthier nations of “climate colonialism”. 

Greenpeace said the deal didn’t go nearly far enough to help ‘climate-vulnerable’ communities. Jasper Inventor, Head of COP29 Greenpeace Delegation in Baku said the NCQG was “woefully inadequate”.

Meena Raman, from Friends of the Earth Malaysia, described the deal as “an insult to developing nations” and accused rich countries of “abdicating their responsibilities” and “playing with the lives of the poor”. 

Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, WWF Global Climate and Energy Lead, said the climate finance deal “let the world down” and that it threatens to “set back global efforts to tackle the climate crisis”. 

Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network, described the summit as “the most horrendous climate negotiations in years” due to the “bad faith of developed countries”. 

Defending the NCQD, Simon Stiell, executive director of UN Climate Change, said it will “keep the clean energy boom growing” and help all countries “share in its huge benefits”, although he did accept that some nations didn’t get the deal they were hoping for.  

There are fears carbon credit trading will accelerate climate change
There are fears carbon credit trading will accelerate climate change

An area that attracted substantial criticism was the resolution to allow a voluntary carbon market, where rich countries and private businesses can trade carbon credits. 

Carbon credits are designed to incentivise international cooperation in fighting climate change and having a market makes it possible for wealthier countries to let poorer ones meet eco-friendly targets. 

Covered in Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, the voluntary market would allow companies to buy and sell carbon credits to offset their emissions.

However, it potentially allows some heavy greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters to buy the right to build fossil fuel projects in regions already suffering from climate change. 

The UN doesn’t currently monitor the effects on the environment carbon credit trading would have, and it would rely on national and regional authorities to do so. 

One of the provisions of Article 6.4 would see the eventual creation of a UN-backed body to regulate the voluntary carbon market.

Fred Njehu, Pan-African Political Strategist, Greenpeace Africa, said the COP29 deal was “an insult” and accused the “global North” of “climate colonialism”.

Quote
Fred Njehu – Greenpeace Africa

“While our continent burns, floods, and starves from a crisis we didn’t create, wealthy nations offer pennies while pocketing billions in fossil fuel profits.”

Fred Njehu, Greenpeace
Fred Njehu Greenpeace Africa

Pan-African Political Strategist

Dr Lamfu Yengong, Greenpeace Africa’s Forest Campaigner described the carbon market agreements as “nothing but a neo-colonial scheme dressed up as climate action”.

“Our forests and lands are being eyed as convenient carbon dumps while fossil fuel companies continue their destructive business,” Dr Yengongs stated.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, from Friends of the Earth International, said opening the door to the carbon market would have “disastrous impacts for communities and ecosystems” and risks human rights violations.  

“The supposed ‘COP of climate finance’ has turned into the ‘COP of false solutions’, the terrible deal on finance destroys the notion of historical responsibility of the rich big polluting countries and pushes private debt creating finance,” Chandrasekaran said. 

Written by

Maximilian Schwerdtfeger

Max joined The Eco Experts as content manager in February 2024. He has written about sustainability issues across numerous industries, including maritime, supply chain, finance, mining, and retail. He has also written extensively for consumer titles like City AM, The Morning Star, and The Daily Express.

In 2020, he covered in detail the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) legislation on sulphur emissions and its effects on the global container shipping market as online editor of Port Technology International.

He also explored the initiatives major container ports and terminals have launched in order to ship vital goods across the world without polluting the environment.

Since then, he has reported heavily on the impact made by environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices on the supply chain of minerals, with a particular focus on rare earth mining in Africa.

As part of this, in 2022 Max visited mines and ports in Angola to hone in on the challenges being faced by one of the world’s biggest producers of rare earth minerals.

His most recent sustainability-related work came much closer to home, as he investigated the eco-challenges faced by independent retailers in the UK, specifically looking at how they can cut emissions and continue to thrive.

Max lives in South London and is an avid reader of books on modern history and ghost stories. He has also recently learned to play the game Mahjong and takes every opportunity to do so. He is also yet to find a sport he doesn’t enjoy watching.

More about