University of Miami at the UN Climate Change Treaty Negotiations

Day 1 - November 11, 2024

Climate activists staging a protest at the Baku Stadium

The 29th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change opened today with a strong emphasis on the need for climate finance. COP 29 President Mukhtar Babayev -- Azerbaijan's Minister of Natural Resources and Environment and formerly the Vice-President of Ecology for the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) -- urged Parties to deliver an ambitious New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG). The UNFCCC's Executive Secretary, Simon Stiell, emphasized that "climate finance is not charity" and that ambitious action from all benefits everyone else. 

This was as far as they got. The Plenary session was suspended immediately after opening statements, owing to a disagreement on the agenda. Chief among the items of contention was the placement of discussions regarding the implementation of the Global Stocktake (GST). The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Least Developed States (LDCs), and the Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), among others, agree that all items of the GST must be carried forward for implementation. Meanwhile, the Like-Minded Developing Countries, the Arab Group, and the Africa Group agree that the focus of GST implementation should be narrowed to climate finance.

Late in the evening of Day 1, Plenary was reconvened with Parties agreeing to retain discussions of GST implementation under finance with the understanding the the Presidency will undertake further consultations to resolve Parties' concerns. 

The UNFCCC COP is notorious for its long days and drawn-out discussions that leave Parties and other stakeholders dissatisfied with the outcomes. An 8-hour suspension of proceeedings even before the first negotiations can take place on highly contentious climate finance agenda items jeopardizes the potential ambition of the outcomes expected at COP 29. Negotiators, already exhausted from long lay-overs and the packed agenda, must now hustle if they are to deliver negotiable decision language before high-level ministers takeover discussions next week. 

Day 2 - 12 November 2024

Alyssa Huffman with Micronesia climate finance negotiator, Joshua Pangelinan

Over the past three years, Parties to the Paris Agreement have engaged in negotiations and work programmes to prepare to finalize a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on Climate Finance at this year’s COP. The NCQG will aim to increase funding from developed to developing countries, building off of the 100 billion USD proffered in the current goal. However, these three years of work appear to have resulted in a framework negotiating text that is insufficient and “a mess.”

At Tuesday’s Contact Group negotiation, Parties expressed their discontent with the text, which failed to incorporate all proposed provisions and remained extremely unbalanced in its priorities. Parties differed in their views as to how to approach the negotiations in the upcoming weeks in light of this problematic framework. Some wanted to still build off the text, worried that nothing better can be created in the next few days than something that took three years of negotiations to create. Others, particularly the G77 and China, Association of Small Island States (AOSIS),  and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) wanted to scrap the framework entirely, arguing that the flaws were too great and burdensome on developing countries for it to serve as a viable starting point for negotiations.

Ultimately, the Co-Chairs decided to work through the night to draft a new iteration of a negotiating framework that properly encompasses all the views expressed by Parties. However, Parties currently have extremely polarized viewpoints regarding a few matters, the biggest of which stems from a lack of a clear “climate finance” definition. Developing countries want climate finance to encompass new, additional, and public funds, with a particular emphasis on highly concessionary and grant-based funding. Developed countries, however, want to extensively involve the private sector in meeting their funding requirements. In addition, developed countries want to expand the contributor base of the fund. Currently, countries with emerging economies like China are not listed as contributors, as they are characterized as developing countries. Developed countries want these countries to increasingly contribute to the fund as circumstances allow, while developing countries view this as an attempt from the countries with the highest historical emissions to back-track on responsibility for those emissions.

As a result of these numerous diverging issues, the new framework text of the NCQG will likely be very long with many unresolved provisions. Given that the Paris Agreement Presidency has asked a draft decision text with all technical issues resolved by Saturday evening, negotiators have a long few nights ahead of them if they hope to keep an ambitious NCQG alive.

Day 3 - November 13, 2024

Jayson Fry with AOSIS Mitigation Coordinator, Toiata Uili, and Pacific Island Negotiators

 Attending COP29 has been an eye-opening experience, especially as adaptation discussions gain momentum and urgency. This year, one of the most impactful aspects of the conference for me has been witnessing how Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are taking center stage in negotiations. The reality of climate change for these nations is not a distant threat but a present crisis, one they are grappling with daily. For SIDS, adaptation isn't just a topic of theoretical debate—it’s a matter of survival.

In the sessions and side events focused on adaptation, it’s become clear that while climate change impacts everyone, SIDS face uniquely intense challenges. Rising sea levels, increasing storm frequency and intensity, and the degradation of critical ecosystems are all compounding to make life increasingly untenable for these nations. Many representatives from SIDS have shared firsthand accounts of what they’re experiencing back home: homes washed away by rising tides, freshwater supplies contaminated, and agricultural lands becoming less viable. It’s a sobering reminder that adaptation is not a one-size-fits-all issue; it requires solutions that are specific, immediate, and well-funded.

The discussions around adaptation financing have been some of the most interesting I’ve seen so far. SIDS have made it clear that, for them, adaptation funding is not an optional support but an absolute necessity. This is not only about building sea walls or implementing early warning systems but about ensuring that these countries remain livable. Yet, accessing adaptation finance remains a challenge.

I’ve also been struck by how the representatives from SIDS have urged developed countries to take responsibility—not just for reducing emissions but for supporting adaptation efforts in vulnerable regions. This call for accountability is echoed throughout COP, and it feels like we’re reaching a tipping point where adaptation financing can no longer be sidelined or deferred. 

Being here, surrounded by advocates and leaders from SIDS, has deepened my understanding of how pressing adaptation is for these nations. It’s clear that for SIDS, adaptation isn’t just an item on the climate agenda; it’s a lifeline. The hope is that this urgency translates into concrete commitments that prioritize and empower these communities to face the climate challenges they’re already living through.

Day 4 - November 14, 2024

Dursun Ersoz with Meaghan Cutty, Ocean Lead for the US Department of State, and law students from the University of Maine

The oceans were not on the agenda at COP 29, but that does not mean they received no attention. There were countless opportunities to learn more at the pavilions from scientists, businesses, non-profits, and, most importantly, delegates from Pacific small island developing states who have experienced the worst of climate change impacts and who have the most to lose if drastic changes are not made by all nations. The pavilions at COP29 raised awareness on the fact that oceans are not only being impacted by climate change, but that they play a major role in mitigating climate change.

Pacific delegates at this year's pavilion highlighted that while their very existence is at stake due to the projected sea level rise as a result of climate change, there are other risks that they are facing. While their livelihoods depends heavily on ocean resources, the increased ocean temperatures are destroying the coral reefs that support a delicate ecosystem. As a result, fish stock have begun to migrate, placing their economies at near-future risk. 

Pacific small island states are undertaking significant mitigation efforts, despite relatively insignificant greenhouse gas emissions. Speakers at side and pavilion events at COP29 highlighted their remarkable mitigation efforts in hopes of being an example for other nations.

Scientists further highlighted the available nature-based mitigation and adaptation efforts such as establishing and preserving mangroves, seagrass, and coral reefs. These not only act as carbon sinks, but also promote biodiversity, protect the marine resources small islands heavily depend on, and provide a buffer against changing ocean conditions. One message was clear: although developing nations are implementing major mitigation efforts, they lack the resources to implement more adaptation measures.

Day 5 - November 15, 2024

People working on laptops at the COP 29 computer center

COP 29 has been an interesting example of how bogged down international law can be by process and conflicting interests. This week, I have been following negotiations related to technology. One item on the agenda is the Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer (PSP). While many developing countries struggle to keep afloat in the modern economy, they risk falling behind on their climate and development goals without technological support to participate in the markets that often have high barriers to entry while protecting their citizenry from the perils of climate change.

The PSP seeks to provide funding to developing countries for climate technology development and transfer. It will complete its mandate in 2025 and now needs further guidance from Parties if it is to continue. Halfway through the two-week negotiations, Parties remained unable to agree on the way forward and PSP negotiations are uncertain to continue, given the already-packed schedule for Week 2.

The Technology Mechanisms under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Paris Agreement need to catch up with the speed of developments to ensure that they are serving the needs of developing nations effectively. This is especially true for island nations—grouped under the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)—who will be some of the first victims of the impending climate disaster. These countries, along with other Least Developed Countries (LDCs) need significant support to develop and implement green mitigation and adaptation technologies to safeguard their population from rising sea levels, increased flooding and droughts, and the ruination of the large current streams.

Hope outside the negotiation rooms

The negotiations are not reflective of the climate technology field in general. The presentations happening alongside the negotiations provided an informative and hopeful outlook towards the development and diffusion of green technologies. Nations shared their unilateral actions to transfer mitigation and adaptation green technologies. Other events provided valuable insights into climate change developments. From high-level meetings about the state of global water basins to progress in Azerbaijan’s development of a green energy grid and the launching of the Global Matchmaking Platform for Industrial Decarbonization, there were many opportunities to learn about efforts being made to stop the climate crisis.

Day 6 – November 16, 2024

Lorena Zenteno with UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change Elisa Morgera, and Indigenous Peoples Activists

At the opening of COP29, Parties to the Paris Agreement adopted controversial rules on carbon markets under Article 6.4 mechanism of the Paris Agreement without adequate process or debate. This decision sets a troubling precedent, bypassing essential oversight and risking significant harm to human rights and environmental integrity. This rushed approval undermines trust in international climate negotiations by prioritizing a procedural “win” over a substantive review.

The Supervisory Body for the Article 6.4 mechanism finalized the rules on carbon markets in October, enabling speculative carbon removal technologies like carbon capture and geoengineering. These approaches, already rejected at COP27 and COP28, fail to guarantee meaningful emissions reductions and open the door to practices that could harm vulnerable communities, particularly Indigenous Peoples. Despite the urgency to combat climate change, the decision to bypass States’ ability to review these rules undercuts their legitimacy and raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.

The approval of these rules disproportionately affects Indigenous communities, whose lands and livelihoods are often targeted for carbon offset projects. These markets allow polluters to buy carbon credits issued for lands protected from development, but many projects fail to deliver genuine emissions reductions. Without robust safeguards, such initiatives risk violating Indigenous Peoples’ rights, including their right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). This lack of oversight undermines Indigenous governance, land tenure, and traditional knowledge while exposing communities to exploitation.

Francisco Calí Tzay, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, recently emphasized the need for a moratorium on carbon markets to prevent abuses of Indigenous rights. Such a pause could provide the necessary time to establish more robust safeguards and accountability measures, ensuring these mechanisms respect human rights and contribute to real climate action.

To restore integrity to the Article 6.4 mechanism, Parties must issue strong guidance to the Supervisory Body, ensuring future rules are developed in consultation with affected communities. Inclusive governance, equitable benefits, and respect for Indigenous rights must form the foundation of any carbon market initiative. Carbon markets can only contribute to meaningful and just climate solutions through transparent, rights-based approaches.

Day 9 – November 19, 2024

Climate activists presenting developed countries with their "climate invoice"

Although COP29 has been primarily focused on reaching agreement for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, Parties to the Paris Agreement have been diligently working on other matters that are equally important, including plans to support the formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

 NAPs are a way for developing countries to identify their adaptation needs and strategies to address them. At COP29, Parties have tried to find common ground on adaptation financing and provision of technical assistance for implementation. However consensus remained elusive and Parties agreed today to push the matter to the mid-year meetings in June 2025 in Bonn, Germany, building on the work completed in Baku.

 “Shelving” the work on NAPs generated a lengthy procedural discussion. Some parties preferred for the COP29 work product to be considered an informal recommendation while others saw it as a draft decision that should generate action once adopted. Parties eventually reached compromise, agreeing to bring forward their work product to the mid-year meetings as a draft decision, with the understanding that further negotiations will take place in June.

 The immense focus on the NCQG seems to have drained capacity for negotiation in virtually all other areas, including NAP negotiations. This is not unexpected. A massive part of the NAP discussions revolved around financing. Formulating and implementing NAPs will require funding that developing country Parties hope a much larger NCQG can provide. One hopes that the NCQG adopted in COP 29 will be an ambitious one so Parties can build upon their NAP progress next summer.

Day 9 – November 19, 2024

Global Cooling Pledge Ministers and Heads of Delegation with UNEP and COP Leadership

In COP, people often talk about “following” different issues and that can mean different things. For me, that means following adaptation through energy efficient cooling.

I got the chance to attend the Global Cooling Pledge Roundtable, where many countries briefly discussed their energy efficiency and cooling initiatives. But it’s not only countries that have joined: notably, Miami-Dade County was among the cities recognized for signing on to the Pledge.

Energy efficient cooling is both an adaptation and mitigation measure. Energy efficient cooling reduces carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions from energy use, mitigating climate change. Energy efficient cooling will become increasingly necessary as temperatures continue to rise. With sustainable cooling having a broad reach in climate action, it seems more and more countries and development agencies are becoming interested.

The growth in adoption of national cooling plans stands in stark contrast to stalled negotiations on adaptation. Finance continues to loom large, with protesters calling for developed countries to pay their climate debt to developing countries.

Yet in the margins of COP, there is hope. Maybe energy efficient cooling can help deliver on the climate progress countries so desperately need.

Day 10 – November 20, 2024

 

Contrary to reports, COP 29 is more than climate finance. It’s about technology development and transfer too. The first Global Stocktake – a mechanism under the Paris Agreement that is meant to enhance the countries’ collective climate goals – created thge Technology Implementation Programme (TIP) to support developing countries’ adaptation and mitigation to climate change.

Day 10 – November 20, 2024

UM Students, Kyle Spohn and Danielle Bejar, at the coordination meeting for Research and Independent Nongovernmental Organizations on 22 November 2024

Even though COP29 has been labeled the “Finance COP”, Loss and damage (L&D) remains a crucial element of climate action. Through L&D, extremely vulnerable developing nations in the Global South seek to hold the Global North accountable for the effects of their historically high emissions. Developed nations of the Global North have denied this accountability, instead pointing the finger at private actors such as large fossil fuel companies.

In 2013, Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—the parent convention to the Paris Agreement—established the Warsaw Implementation Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (“WIM”)to provide relief for developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts and have already begun to experience losses due to extreme weather, flooding, and drought.  It continues to operate under the Paris Agreement, with Parties reviewing the WIM beginning in 2024 and every five years thereafter.

This background sets the scene for negotiations around the WIM that took place at COP 29, where developing nations sought ambitious improvements in the strength and functionality of the WIM to provide desperately needed relief to their citizens. The Global North refused to budge in week one of the Conference, leading to a stalemate that left all progress at a standstill.

The Presidency, to push the Parties towards an agreement, placed the WIM back on the agenda in week two for reconsideration. However, with Parties staunchly divided and the Global South standing their ground on ambitious reform, negotiations ended on Tuesday with almost nothing to show. According to Parties in the Global South, a half-baked compromise at the final hour is unacceptable. These negotiations send a clear message: developing countries will not compromise in holding developed countries accountable for climate change.

Parties will reconvene next June and at COP 30 in Belém to continue to work on the Warsaw Implementation Mechanism as climate change effects continue to worsen around the world.

Day 11 – November 21, 2024

In any negotiation, Parties enter the room with information about their side which is hidden from the opposing party, such as opening offers, “walk-away” positions, and points of leverage. Countries telegraph their positions through their “interventions,” usually when proposing an edit to text or responding to a discussion item. An intervention above replacing a comma with a semicolon or fixing a spelling error almost always contains a clue for the others in the room.

The art—or magic—of a multilateral climate negotiation is for the Chair – a Party negotiator who is plucked from their delegation to serve as an impartial referee between countries – to identify the Parties’ differing and overlapping positions and coax the room toward reaching a deal. This might happen before the negotiations begin, when Parties submit position statements and reject or accept draft negotiation texts. Once in the room, however, Chairs must spot signs of an impasse before they form or become entrenched in the Parties’ relations and take measures to engage disagreeing countries with compromises. Proactive chairing requires well-prepared and knowledgeable moderators and a connected background operation to give parties the space and incentive to close the deal.

My observations of Week 2 of COP29 demonstrate the importance of a steady hand at the helm of climate negotiations, especially on matters as fraught and politically sensitive as climate finance. The COP 29 Presidency, led by Azerbaijan, quickly escalated the crown jewel of this year’s “finance COP”—the new collective quantified goal for finance (“NCQG”)—to government ministers during week 2. Nevertheless, negotiations on a host of other finance items, such as guidance to the major financial mechanisms of the Paris Agreement (Green Climate Fund, Global Environment Facility, Adaptation Fund, and Loss and Damage Fund), still carried on at the diplomatic level.

Parties routinely registered their disapproval with the pace of negotiations and the approach being taken, and predominantly fell along a developed/developing fault line. Oftentimes, negotiations would proceed as line-by-line dissections of draft text—a format not suited to all types of consultations.

Developed countries expressed their frustration with some Parties bogging down the room with small adjustments to text, rather than more concrete, substantive solutions. Many also raised issues with parties adding brackets around text upon which the parties previously agreed. Many developing countries also voiced concerns that developed countries would repeatedly revisit settled questions or take positions they viewed as inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and other instruments.

A particular sticking point of the guidance consultations was whether the guidance proposed was too “managerial” or directive of the Boards of the Funds. Chairs frequently became flustered along with the parties, and upon hitting an impasse would usually dismiss parties into informal, ad-hoc “huddles” that rarely yielded compromises. While there have been notable successes, such as the adoption of Loss & Damage and Adaptation Fund text, the outcome has been slow, tedious eleventh-hour negotiations on some of the more contentious finance items. Ultimately, GCF and GEF were forwarded to the presidency with extensively bracketed text underscoring deep unresolved divisions between developed and developing countries.

By managing negotiations using the tools of the UNFCCC Secretariat and COP 29 Presidency, the Chairs could have advanced meaningful compromises sooner and provided more substantive, effective decision text.