View from the inside: COP29 and what it means for vulnerable communities

We caught up with our Senior Consultant on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management, Bimal Regmi,  back home in his native Nepal, who takes stock of missed opportunities for supporting local communities as well as outlining what policymakers now need to do to help limit the devastating effects of a changing climate. 

You were at COP with the Nepal delegation – what was it like?

During the first week of negotiations, parties struggled to find common ground on key agenda items as deep divisions between high and lower-income nations stalled progress on climate finance, trade measures, and equitable responsibility for climate action. Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) reiterated their call for $1.3 trillion annually in climate finance, emphasising grants to avoid burdening vulnerable economies already grappling with climate change impacts. They also demanded progress on doubling adaptation finance, more pledges for the Loss and Damage Fund, and increased ambition from developed nations on mitigation. The lack of progress in the first week created scepticism and anxiety among delegates, particularly from poor and vulnerable countries and civil society, who expected rapid progress toward a deal in Baku.

The second week began with fierce discussions on the quantum of climate finance, including its scope, quantification, quality, and source. Other agenda items like mitigation, loss and damage, and adaptation were overshadowed by the tussle over climate financing. On the final day of negotiations, delegates from the LDC group and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) walked out of the meeting room, expressing strong dissatisfaction with the draft agreement on climate finance, claiming they were being "ignored" during consultations. LDCs stated they were not consulted on the draft, which lacked a minimum financial allocation for them. Other developing nations slammed the draft climate finance deal as "grossly insufficient" and "a joke."

Finally, after a day of extended negotiations, countries reached an agreement on climate financing that includes tripling finance to developing countries from the previous goal of USD 100 billion annually to USD 300 billion annually by 2035 and securing efforts of all actors to work together to scale up finance to developing countries, from public and private sources, to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

A notable achievement was also made on carbon markets. Countries agreed on the final building blocks for how carbon markets will operate under the Paris Agreement, making country-to-country trading and a carbon crediting mechanism fully operational. On country-to-country trading (Article 6.2), the decision from COP29 provides clarity on how countries will authorise the trade of carbon credits and how registries tracking this will operate. Likewise, under the text agreed on Article 6.4, there is a clear mandate for the UN carbon market to align with science. It tasks the body responsible for setting up this market to consider the best available science across all future work.

Countries also agreed on a decision on gender and climate change, extending the enhanced Lima Work Programme on Gender and Climate Change for another 10 years, reaffirming the importance of gender equality and advancing gender mainstreaming throughout the convention. Additionally, COP29 agreed to develop a new gender action plan for adoption at COP30, which will set the direction for concrete implementation.

Is this too little, too late? 

Some progress was made in adaptation. The COP29 decision on matters relating to LDCs contains a provision for establishing a support program for implementing National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for LDCs. The outcome on the global goal on adaptation sets a clear path forward for the indicators work program, providing a process for experts to continue their technical work before passing it to Parties. COP29 also launched the Baku Adaptation Road Map and Baku high-level dialogue on adaptation to enhance the implementation of the UAE Framework. Finally, the outcome raises ambition by agreeing to continue unpacking transformational adaptation moving forward.

However, the progress made on the NCQG fell short of the expectations of LDCs and developing nations. According to LDC delegates, the NCQG fails to address the climate emergency's scale and urgency, ignoring the needs of LDCs and SIDS and offering no minimum allocation for these groups. The agreement also lacks meaningful support, leaving communities to suffer without recourse. 

On other agenda items, COP29 produced minimal progress. The mitigation agenda was pushed toward Brazil at COP30, further endangering humanity's ability to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C. Pledges for the Loss and Damage Fund were grossly inadequate and did not meet the expectations of LDCs and SIDS. Likewise, the promise to double adaptation financing faced setbacks due to very negligible commitments to the Adaptation Fund.

What does this mean for Nepal?

Overall, Baku failed to produce preferred outcomes in the specific interest of Nepal. Nepal flagged mountain issues by organising a high-level discussion on mountains and loss and damage, hoping to include the mountain agenda in formal negotiations. Although mountains were reflected in the draft decision text of the Global Stocktake, parties failed to adopt the decision. The Nepalese delegation perceived that multilateralism had once again failed to do justice to mountain people and their sufferings.
Back home, there are massive challenges in taking domestic climate actions to address climate extreme events, disasters, and meet the expectations of poor and vulnerable households already devastated by climate change impacts. International climate finance is limited, necessitating countries to diversify bilateral and multilateral funding, including from the private sector, to increase investments in climate change adaptation and addressing loss and damage.

What next for national policymakers?

Country internal preparedness and capacity are paramount to strengthening domestic climate action. There is a need to decentralise climate finance, technology, and capacity support to sub-national governments at the local level to ensure that the most vulnerable and marginalised households have adequate access to finance and technology to address climate change adversities.

At the community level, a more inclusive and targeted approach will make climate action more effective. Socio-structural challenges, including the marginalisation of development efforts, have put women, elderly, poor, and indigenous people at higher risk of climate change. The heightened risks and vulnerability at the local level can only be addressed by recognising the rights of vulnerable households to resources and decision-making on climate actions. A swift, tailored, and targeted approach will heal the wounds of vulnerable groups suffering from this crisis.

About the author:

Bimal Regmi is a Senior Consultant for climate change and disaster risk management based in our Nepal office. He has more than 22 years of experience supporting national and local climate change adaptation priorities and fostering the development of inclusive businesses in Nepal, South Asia and beyond. A major part of his work involves advising the Government of Nepal (GON) in risk reduction, natural systems sustainability, agriculture and biodiversity conservation, and has made significant contributions to the development of Nepal’s Climate Change Policy. He has also played a crucial role in assisting the governments to establish a strategic roadmap toward climate resilience and green growth through a dozen policy and institutional reforms.