Podcast Summary: This Week in Global Development

Episode: Did COP29 Deliver?

Date: November 26, 2024
Host: David Ainsworth (Devex)
Guests:

• JC Chase Limbicz (Devex Climate Reporter)
• Claire Schaaker (Managing Director for Climate, The Nature Conservancy)

Episode Overview

This episode takes a critical look at COP29, specifically examining its outcomes, the new climate finance deal, and implications for global development—especially for the world’s poorest and most climate-vulnerable countries. The panel unpacks the headline commitments, the negotiation dynamics, and what the future holds for climate policy, finance, and multilateral cooperation.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Headline Deal: The $300 Billion Commitment

(00:37–05:50)

• COP29 concluded with an 11th-hour agreement: a $300 billion annual target for climate finance, set to start in 2035, with an aspirational $1.3 trillion “goal.”
• The panel points out this target “pleased no one,” particularly failing to meet the expectations of least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).
• The core frustration: The $300 billion is a “mobilized” target (i.e., including private finance) rather than a clear “provided” commitment from rich countries’ own budgets.

Claire Schaaker (01:16):
"It's a deal. It was a deal that pleased no one... For the least developed countries and the small island developing states, this was not what they were looking for."

• Inflation significantly undermines the real value of the promised funds by the time 2035 arrives.

David Ainsworth (05:50):
“300 billion here as if it’s going to be worth as much now as it will be in 11 years. Whereas in fact probably the value of 300 billion will have depreciated by about 40%.”

2. Disunity, Definitions, and Deep Frustrations

(05:50–11:41)

• Acrimony marked negotiations, with procedural and diplomatic missteps.
• The longstanding Developed vs. Developing country divide failed to reflect today's multipolar economic reality; pushback emerged regarding which countries should pay.
• Many LDCs and SIDS sought a “provide, not mobilize” target, minimum contributions, and grant equivalency (i.e., money that doesn’t add to their debt).

JC Chase Limbicz (03:36):
“There’s no division in the final draft... The developing countries are really upset about the fact that there’s not a clear target coming from north to south.”

• The deal was “gavelled through” without full opportunity for objection, raising questions about process legitimacy.

Claire Schaaker (10:52):
“…it got gavelled through without opening the floor. So there were a lot of countries that wanted to object that weren’t given the opportunity…that’s the point where multilateralism really gets shaky.”

• Lack of clear, enforceable definitions for climate finance—confusion on what counts, and much of the finance is recycled ODA, not new money.

3. Form of Finance: Loans vs Grants

(12:47–15:10)

• Debate over the “grant equivalency” was central; many recipient countries object to loan-based climate finance, given existing debt crises.
• The final deal failed to specify the form of assistance (grant vs. loan), diminishing possible positive impact and accountability.

JC Chase Limbicz (13:06):
“For grant equivalency, most aid outside of climate finance is counted [in that system]... Climate finance is not counted like that. And we’re already in a serious debt crisis.”

• Broader, interlinked issues discussed, like climate-smart agriculture and the need for resilient food systems in affected regions.

4. Why Did COP29 Disappoint?

(15:45–22:02)

• Political realities: Global North faces domestic challenges, election cycles, and internal weakening (notably in the EU and US), decreasing appetite for bold commitments.

JC Chase Limbicz (16:03):
“I’m not really sure they ever planned on giving more... I feel like the LDCs didn’t have a whole lot of leverage. They weren’t going to walk away and they didn’t really have… more of an olive branch here.”

• Geopolitical tensions:
  • Breakdown of the G77 + China bloc, with rifts over who should contribute vs. receive.
  • Influence of petro-states, especially Azerbaijan (host), resisting strong language on fossil fuel phase-out.
  • Visible intra-European weakness and shifting alliances.

Claire Schaaker (17:36):
“We saw a breakdown of the G77 in China... In addition to that, there was the plays by the petro states and much more visible than ever before.”

• The Azerbaijani presidency’s handling of the event drew criticism for chaotic, non-transparent negotiations.

5. Looking Ahead: Next Steps in Climate Policy

(23:59–29:27)

• Next COP (Brazil) expected to focus on:
  • Finalising the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).
  • Integrating climate and biodiversity goals.
  • Implementing newly agreed carbon market rules.
  • Countries setting/revising their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Claire Schaaker (23:59):
“People will be featured in all of the different angles of that for climate... the connection between climate and nature and indeed designification, the three COP sort of integration, we’re expecting Brazil to focus on that much more and it’s long overdue.”

• Brazil's proactive approach (early NDC submission) signals potential new leadership in international climate negotiations.

• US (possibly under Trump) preparing to withdraw from Paris Agreement again; others (e.g., Argentina) considering following suit, risking a domino effect.

JC Chase Limbicz (26:59):
“We could see this kind of combination of biodiversity and climate a little bit more obviously, which just might kind of streamline the process... The US pulling out of the Paris Agreement is going to be a big part of what we see.”

6. Geopolitical Shifts and Erosion of Solidarity

(28:14–30:06)

• Political will in the Global North is waning—voters are skeptical of large outlays for climate finance amid domestic “cost of living crises.”
• The public in donor nations increasingly sees climate finance as remote from their problems, even as climate impacts mount globally.
• Challenge: Justifying South-directed climate finance as North also faces climate disasters.

7. Closing Thoughts: Glimmers of Hope

(30:13–31:23)

• Panelists close on a cautiously optimistic note: market forces, technological change, and real-economy shifts (e.g., renewables) can drive progress, sometimes despite lagging political agreements.

Claire Schaaker (30:13):
"We can take hope that the real economy is actually driving a transition now... It's not something... that's led by federal governments... They're really driven by the economy and what's cheapest. And we now see renewables definitely in that space."

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “It was possibly one of the most heartbreaking COPs I’ve been in. It was just awful watching the poorest countries... watch any sort of strong, clear commitment...just not land. It’s going to stay with me forever.”
  — Claire Schaaker (02:55)

• “There’s no real definitions either of what does and doesn’t count as climate finance... airports and coal stations and goodness knows what count as climate finance.”
  — David Ainsworth (11:41)

• “Climate finance seems to be pretty much the worst form of funding anywhere in international development for reasons that are extremely, kind of hard to understand.”
  — David Ainsworth (12:28)

• “The only way we know a decision’s been made is because the gavel has fallen.”
  — Claire Schaaker (11:06)

• “We had to get a deal. There was, because of this conversation about who the contribution base should be... that really became very shaky.”
  — Claire Schaaker (17:38)

• “Even though tons of different countries, no matter where you are now, are getting hit by climate impacts, obviously those in the Global South are getting hit much harder. But I can see that definitely becoming a bigger issue moving forward.”
  — JC Chase Limbicz (29:27)

Timestamps for Critical Segments

• 00:37–05:50: The finance deal breakdown and why LDCs & SIDS feel let down
• 05:50–11:41: Definitions, donor/recipient divides, and the messy process
• 12:47–15:10: Grant equivalency and modalities of climate finance
• 16:03–22:02: What went wrong? Geopolitical, procedural, and historical explanations
• 23:59–29:27: What’s next? COP30, adaptation goals, integration with biodiversity, NDCs
• 30:13–31:23: Panelists’ closing thoughts and hope for progress outside of political gridlock

Conclusions & Takeaways

COP29’s outcome epitomizes a growing disconnect in the multilateral climate process, with high expectations unmet, political divides growing, and technical/financial outcomes diluted by consensus-based bargaining. Despite frustration, panelists urge listeners to recognize shifts happening in technology, markets, and society that may yet outpace the world’s politicians—offering a glimmer of hope for genuine climate action.

For more in-depth reporting and analysis from Devex, subscribe to their newsletters and follow their events.