Author: Júlia Fortuny
COP29 concluded with significant announcements on climate finance and carbon market mechanisms, but the outcomes left many Indigenous Peoples, marginalised communities, and vulnerable nations feeling excluded. While there were advancements in areas like the agreement on a new climate finance goal and the operationalisation of carbon markets, key concerns about equity, human rights, and ambitious climate action remain unresolved.
Climate Finance: Falling Short of the Need
One of COP29’s major agreements was on the new collective quantified climate finance goal (NCQG), set at $300 billion annually by 2035. The funding is meant to help developing countries adapt to climate impacts, transition to renewable energy, and address loss and damage caused by climate disasters.
However, this figure is far below the $1.3 trillion annually experts estimate is necessary to meet the scale of the climate crisis. Representatives from vulnerable nations expressed frustration, arguing that the target does not reflect the urgency or magnitude of their needs. “$300 billion until 2035 is a joke”, expressed a Nigerian representative Nkiruka Maduekwe speaking at the closing assembly.
The agreement also lacked clear protections for Indigenous Peoples. While it encourages the inclusion of these communities in the benefits of climate finance, references to human rights and the rights of Indigenous Peoples were deleted from the final text of the NCQG. This way, it falls short of recognising them as collective rights holders, leaving them vulnerable to projects that could lead to land dispossession or environmental degradation. Critics warn that without specific safeguards, climate finance could unintentionally harm the very communities it aims to support.
“Expecting us to be grateful for 300 billion by 2035 is expecting us to be grateful for you profiting off our preventable deaths”, said IIPFCC’s representative during COP29 Closing Statement.
Carbon Markets: A Step Forward, But Concerns Remain
Another key outcome was the adoption of rules under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6, which governs international carbon markets. The framework introduces standards for decentralised trading (Article 6.2) and centralised mechanisms (Article 6.4), with the latter including mandatory safeguards to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights.
The centralised mechanism also allows affected communities to file complaints if projects violate their rights, and it ensures that carbon credits cannot be issued for activities that undermine environmental or social integrity.
While these safeguards represent progress, concerns persist about the transparency and oversight of decentralised trading under Article 6.2. Critics warn that the lack of stringent review processes could lead to abuses, particularly in regions where Indigenous land rights are not legally recognised.
Loss and Damage Fund: Limited Progress
The operationalisation of the Loss and Damage Fund, aimed at supporting countries affected by climate-induced disasters, was a highlight of COP29. The governance structure was finalised, with provisions to prioritise funding for least-developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).
However, financial contributions remain far from sufficient. With initial pledges totalling $759 million, the fund is unlikely to meet the needs of vulnerable nations already facing devastating climate impacts. Efforts to include loss and damage financing within the broader NCQG framework were blocked, underscoring the continued divide between wealthy and developing nations over financial responsibilities.
Renewal of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform
One area of progress was the renewal of the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) and its Facilitative Working Group (FWG) through 2027. The adoption of the Baku Workplan sets the stage for continued collaboration between Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and governments, emphasising the role of traditional knowledge in addressing climate challenges.
This renewal recognises the leadership of Indigenous Peoples in climate action, but its significance was tempered by broader concerns over the lack of strong rights-based language in other areas of COP29’s agreements.
Criticism of the COP29 Process and Outcomes
The conference faced significant criticism for its lack of transparency and inclusivity. Several countries, including India, Nigeria, and Malawi, criticised the decision-making process, highlighting that key discussions occurred behind closed doors. Disagreements over climate finance, fossil fuel transitions, and adaptation goals also resulted in watered-down outcomes.
Notably, COP29 failed to deliver ambitious commitments to phase out fossil fuels or scale up renewable energy. This was compounded by the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists, which some argued undermined the conference’s ability to prioritise meaningful climate action.
Looking Ahead
While COP29 saw progress on several fronts, its outcomes fell short of addressing the core demands of equity and justice for Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable nations. Key mechanisms, such as the NCQG and carbon markets, have potential but need stronger safeguards and more ambitious funding commitments to ensure they deliver meaningful benefits without exacerbating existing inequalities.
As negotiations continue into next year, particularly on the global stocktake and National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes, there is a critical need for more inclusive and transparent decision-making. Only by centring the needs of the most affected communities can future COPs hope to achieve the equity and ambition necessary to confront the climate crisis effectively.