Absence of 'no vote' on climate finance deal doesn't mean it is a win for everyone

'Rich nations, including the United States and EU countries, have exercised brute power here at COP29 to force a deeply unfair and inadequate climate finance outcome...,' Rachel Cleetus, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said.

Baku (Azerbaijan): Although countries agreed on a new USD 300 billion climate finance package for the Global South at the UN climate conference here, reactions pouring in show that not everyone is happy.

Evans Njewa, chair of the "Least Developed Countries" (LDCs) group, called it a disappointing outcome.

"We missed a chance to shield our most vulnerable from the climate crisis and heal our planet. Strong concerns remain over the adopted climate finance goal. Thanks to all who stood with us. We fight on," he said in a post on X.

The chair of the African Group of Negotiators (AGN) said the deal was done "acrimoniously".

"Developed countries taking a lead with USD 300 billion by 2035 is a joke," Nkiruka Maduekwe, a negotiator from Nigeria, said during the closing plenary on Saturday.

"It is not something we should take lightly. I think we should rethink it... We have a right as countries to choose if we want to take this or not," she added.

R R Rashmi, a fellow at Teri Energy Resources Institute of India, told PTI that technically, an agreement is adopted in the absence of a vote against it.

"This case is complex. Here countries were not satisfied with the decision, but they were pushed to adopt it," he said.

On Saturday evening, negotiators from the LDC group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) walked out of the meeting, throwing talks into turmoil.

The LDCs said they were not consulted on the draft and that it did not include separate funding allocation for them.

A statement by the AOSIS said they felt insulted by being left out.

The LDCs and the SIDS have been asking for at least USD 220 billion and USD 39 billion, respectively, from the total climate finance package.

Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson said the UN climate talks almost failed and ended with a disappointing deal.

Rachel Cleetus, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists, criticised the Azerbaijani COP29 Presidency’s handling of the climate finance talks.

“Rich nations, including the United States and EU countries, have exercised brute power here at COP29 to force a deeply unfair and inadequate climate finance outcome that imperils the science-based goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

"Despite their starring role in causing the climate crisis, this wealthy coalition of the unwilling collectively offered a grossly insufficient USD 300 billion annually by 2035," she said.

Ottmar Edenhofer, climate economist and Co-Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “The climate summit in Baku was not a success, but at best the avoidance of a diplomatic disaster." The final hours of COP29 ended tense, with strong criticism of the texts and the presidency.

India strongly reacted to the USD 300 billion climate finance package, saying the COP29 presidency and the UN climate change office forced through the deal before allowing it to voice its objections.

It termed the adoption process "unfair" and "stage-managed" and said it reflected the troubling lack of trust in the UN system.

Malawi, Nigeria, Cuba, and Bolivia supported India.

The final text, released early Sunday with little time for analysis, showed little progress compared to earlier drafts. While it plans to triple current funds, it doesn’t add much in real terms. Due to inflation, this fund in 2035 will be equivalent to what was agreed in 2009, experts told PTI.

The agreement also avoids clearly stating that developed countries are responsible for providing the necessary funds.

Instead, it includes private sources and "innovative" methods rather than ensuring the funding is public, additional, sufficient, and predictable, as civil society groups have called for.