This article reflects on the key successes and failures of two major United Nations (UN) conferences that were each attended by nearly 200 nations in the final quarter of 2024. These two Conference of the Parties, or COPs, are regular meetings of the signatories of two separate – but related – multilateral agreements: the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Like all international negotiations, these COPs yielded both breakthroughs and frustrations. A common and prevalent issue was financing, with both conferences failing to secure crucially important funds from developed nations, leaving little practical means by which to achieve the conferences’ stated global targets. But meaningful progress was made in several key areas. Let’s dive into the details.
COP16
The 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity
Cali, Colombia, 21 Oct – 1 Nov
The primary objective of COP16 was to implement and advance the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), a pivotal roadmap to halting biodiversity loss by 2030 that was established at COP15, which is often regarded as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature.’ Despite important agreements on equitable genetic data use and Indigenous representation, the conference ultimately ended in disarray after delegates were forced to abandon the final 10-hour plenary session – which focused mostly on financing – leaving many issues to be addressed at intersessional meetings in 2025.
Key successes:
- Established The “Cali Fund” for biodiverse nations: Nations agreed that companies using genetic information (that is, from animals and plants) should contribute – albeit voluntarily – to a global biodiversity fund, which pays out to the country or Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) from where the genetic data was collected. The pharmaceutical, cosmetics, agribusiness and technology sectors are mentioned explicitly in the final text.
- Formalized Indigenous representation at biodiversity COPs: Nations agreed to establish a new permanent body giving IPLCs official representation and input during the negotiation and decision-making processes at future biodiversity COPs, strengthening their role as key stakeholders in conservation.
- Recognized the link between biodiversity loss and climate change: A top priority of the Colombian COP16 presidency, nations acknowledged several key considerations for tackling both biodiversity loss and climate simultaneously, including avoiding good-for-climate, bad-for-nature solutions like bioenergy and geoengineering; avoiding financial double-counting for climate and biodiversity funds; and calling for biodiversity to be formally included in climate COP discussions.
Key failures:
- Significant financing gaps remain: Hailed as the ‘biodiversity finance COP,’ the conference ultimately failed to muster enough financial support from developed nations to meet the GBF’s target of USD 200 billion annually for global biodiversity protection. The funding gap remains a major 30-year-old obstacle, leaving developing countries frustrated with the lack of financing for biodiversity initiatives.
- Nations failed to submit their biodiversity plans: Only 44 of 196 nations (22%) submitted official National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans, which are essential for setting national targets and ensuring local-level actions. There were laggards on all sides, with major economies and so-called ‘megadiverse’ nations claiming that they have not had enough time, and developing nations citing insufficient funding to develop their plans.
COP29
The 29th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
Baku, Azerbaijan, 11 Nov – 22 Nov
Hopes were high and expectations tempered going into COP29. It was hosted, a week after the 2024 US elections, by Azerbaijan, a country for whom fossil fuel exports comprise over two-thirds of its income, and whose president described oil and gas as a “gift of God”. Moreover, conference chief executive Elnur Soltanov – a businessman on the board of state-owned oil and gas company SOCAR – was caught using his position to set up fossil fuel deals by journalists posing as fake oil and gas groups. Despite modest successes in certain areas, both the running and outcomes of the conference were widely criticised as unfit for purpose. It concluded 35 hours past its scheduled conclusion.
Key successes:
- A new collective quantified goal on climate finance (NCQG) was passed: After negotiations stretched more than a day past the scheduled end of COP29, countries were able to agree to a NCQG of USD 300 billion per year to developing countries by 2035. However, many developing countries were unhappy with the new goal – see more on this in the “key failures” section below.
- Terms of the Article 6 carbon market were completed: Nations passed new terms governing country-to-country carbon mitigation markets, under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. These include the use of a mandatory “sustainable development tool” under Article 6.4 to ensure the quality and sustainability of carbon credits, as well as to account for any negative effects on communities and ecosystems in the countries supplying them.
- The UN Loss and Damage Fund will be able to distribute money in 2025: Early in COP29, key documents were signed to allow the fund, which was operationalized at COP28, to begin distributing funds to developing countries negatively affected by climate change. However, the amount of money in the fund remains a concern. Contributions are not counted toward countries’ climate finance goals which is causing some wealthy countries to contribute less than expected.
Key failures:
- The new climate finance goal fails to meet the material needs of developing countries: The NCQG of USD 300 billion falls far short of the more than USD 1 trillion experts estimate is required to meet the climate finance needs of developing countries. This conflict held up passage of the NCQG past the scheduled end of COP29, and many developing countries were very unhappy with the agreed-upon total, characterizing it as a “paltry sum” in comparison to what’s needed.
- Countries failed to elaborate on commitments to reduce use of fossil fuels: A key outcome of COP28 in 2023 was the inclusion of language calling on countries to “transition away” from fossil fuels, and many countries wanted COP29 to address and expand upon this language. However, fossil fuel use went unaddressed in the final COP29 agreement. Whether this has implications for the scale of countries’ carbon reduction pledges remains to be seen; the updated pledges are due in February 2025.
Parting Thoughts
Despite the many positive developments that have come out of these forums, their failure to secure the financing that’s needed to drive significant change is creating problems – both now and into the future, making an orderly transition less and less likely. Ambitious environmental targets and strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate- and nature-related risks are hindered by a lack of funding commitments and actionable plans.
Whilst some of the gaps may be filled by innovative financial products, risk professionals need to continue planning for increased physical risks and greater transition risks in the future.
For a more detailed breakdown of COP16 and COP29, see these articles from CarbonBrief.
Tom Strachan is Assistant Vice President at the GARP Risk Institute, specializing in sustainability, climate risk and nature risk management. He holds an MSc in Environmental Technology from Imperial College London.
Ryan Littlefield is Vice President at the GARP Benchmarking Initiative (GBI), helping banks compare risk measures against realistic benchmark portfolios. He holds an MSc in Management Studies, Business Administration and Management from Northwestern University.
Topics: Transition Risk
