Unravelling the profound disparity between the urgent financial needs of climate-vulnerable nations and the dishearteningly inadequate outcomes of COP29.
The Conference of the Parties (COP) is more than a global summit; it is a lifeline for countries grappling with the consequences of climate change. Established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), COP brings nations together to deliberate on critical strategies for addressing climate challenges. Each year, decisions made at COP have far-reaching implications, especially for developing nations, least developed countries (LDCs), and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) that are disproportionately affected by climate-induced disasters.
COP29, held in 2024, was anticipated as a turning point, earning the moniker ‘Finance COP’ due to its focus on redefining the financial mechanisms for global climate action. However, rather than heralding a new era of equitable climate finance, COP29 became a bitter reminder of unfulfilled promises and systemic inequities.
COP’s Significance in Climate Action
The importance of COP lies in its three pillars of climate action: mitigation, adaptation, and addressing loss and damage. While mitigation involves reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, adaptation focuses on strategies to cope with climate impacts. Loss and damage address both quantifiable losses, like infrastructure, and non-quantifiable impacts, such as loss of biodiversity and cultural heritage.
In 2009, COP15 introduced the first global climate finance commitment: developed nations pledged to mobilise USD 100 billion annually by 2020 to support developing countries in their climate action. This figure, extended to 2025 during COP21, was supposed to address these three pillars. Yet, the promise was never met, and developing nations entered COP29 with escalating demands for financial equity.
The Build-Up to COP29
By 2023, it was evident that the USD 100 billion target was not only insufficient but also outdated. The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), a body under the UNFCCC, reported that developing countries require at least USD 1.3 trillion annually for climate mitigation alone, excluding adaptation and loss and damage. LDCs stated their annual need would be USD 220 billion, and SIDS, USD 39 billion.
Given these demands, COP29 was expected to establish a financial floor of USD 1 trillion annually under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Yet, negotiations faltered under the weight of political and economic disparities.
The Disappointing Outcome of COP29
Initial drafts of the NCQG text ran 35 pages, reflecting extensive debates over priorities, mechanisms, and accountability. By November 21, a day before the closing day, this had been condensed to a mere 5 pages, yet, a critical detail, the annual pledge amount, was omitted. When the final pledge of USD 300 billion was announced on November 23, the response was one of outrage and despair.
This amount, adopted without allowing developing nations to raise a point of order, was less than one-third of the SCF’s estimated need for mitigation alone. Worse still, only 50% of the funds were earmarked for mitigation, and 30% for adaptation, while loss and damage, a crucial concern for LDCs and SIDS, was excluded altogether. The process reflected a lack of transparency and disregard for the needs of vulnerable nations.
COP29 was expected to establish a financial floor of USD 1 trillion annually under the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). Yet, negotiations faltered under the weight of political and economic disparities.
Why the Outcome Fails Bangladesh
Bangladesh, with a population of over 170 million, is acutely vulnerable to climate change. Despite contributing less than 1% of global emissions, the country faces disproportionate risks, including rising sea levels, cyclones, and floods. Over the past decade, Bangladesh has reduced cyclone-related fatalities through improved nationally-led disaster management, but economic losses remain severe.
For Bangladesh, the inadequacy of COP29’s financial commitment is devastating. The country’s challenges include capacity constraints, dependence on domestic funds, and administrative inefficiencies. Bangladesh has only secured a cumulative amount of USD 400 million from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) since its inception. The application process for GCF funding is highly complex, requiring detailed project proposals and robust data, which many developing nations struggle to produce. Right now, the majority of climate action is domestically funded. The Bangladesh Climate Change Trust Fund (BCCTF), established under the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP) 2009, relies entirely on national tax revenues. While commendable, this fund is insufficient for large-scale climate action. Finally, the process by which climate action is taken faces significant barriers due to administrative inefficiencies as the process is still top-down. A top-down governance model hampers the implementation of national climate plans at the local level. Without empowering local administrators to identify and address specific climate needs, the country risks inefficiency and delays.
How Funds Could Have Transformed Bangladesh
Had COP29 delivered on its financial promises, Bangladesh, as well as other developing nations, LDCs and SIDS could have achieved transformative progress. For Bangladesh, the funds could have been directed towards strengthening local governance, improving national data systems and building resilience. By training local administrators and decentralising decision-making, Bangladesh could transition to a bottom-up approach. This shift would ensure that grassroots needs are prioritised in national climate strategies. Investment in data collection, consolidation, and repository creation would enhance the country’s capacity to apply for international funds and implement evidence-based climate projects. Finally, funds could be used to safeguard assets during floods and cyclones by improving predictive technologies and implementing robust adaptation measures.
The Way Forward
COP29 was a missed opportunity to redefine global climate finance. However, the fight for equitable funding is far from over. As researchers and negotiators prepare for COP30, scheduled for 2025, the stakes are higher than ever. Developing nations, including Bangladesh, are urging for evidence-based actions and simplified funding mechanisms.
Bangladesh’s ability to adapt and mitigate climate impacts will depend on its ability to secure international support while optimising its domestic resources. The urgency is clear. Without immediate, decisive action, the world risks crossing irreversible climate thresholds.
The price of the planet is not just financial, it is the cost of our shared future. COP30 must deliver what COP29 failed to – a fair, transparent, and effective framework for global climate action. For countries like Bangladesh, it is not just a demand; it is a necessity for survival.
