Global Climate Talks: Expectations vs. Reality

Victoria Segovia, President of Green Convergence, opened the forum discussing a backgrounder on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Conference of Parties (COP), notably the COP 29 that was held last November 11 to 22, 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Segovia echoed the question of how COP 29 can lead other nations, given that the host country is dependent on the petroleum industry, which includes oil and gas extraction. This question was aligned with the plight of COP 29.

COPs take place every year to address the climate crisis such as limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5°C, helping vulnerable communities adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net-zero emissions or “climate neutrality” by year 2050.

The 29th COP then circled back to the Paris Agreement, formed during COP 21 in November 2015, which set a global framework of avoiding dangerous climate change with setting global temperature limits.

Segovia amplified the COP’s aim to support countries’ efforts. “The first world countries or the northern countries are obliged to give money and technological support, so that the southern countries or third world countries will be supported in their efforts at adaptation and mitigation,” she explained.

The key priorities for COP 29 then include setting new goals on climate finance, ensuring that every country has the means to take stronger climate action, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, building resilient communities, and assessing countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

Segovia then concluded her opening remarks by summarizing the results of the COP 29 in Baku.

Following the negotiations in Baku, loss and damage discussions were agreed to be critical for pacific nations such as the Philippines, as they are prone to disasters and calamities. This is aligned to the continuous cry for climate justice, especially on making wealthy countries support vulnerable countries.

Delegates from the southern or third world countries also complained about not being heard and recognized as much as they need.

Moreover, with ongoing military conflicts across the globe, the call for redirecting military spending to climate financing and, ultimately, accountability in terms of emissions is amplified through the conference.

Segovia then introduced the three resource speakers that were to further discuss these results in the December forum.

Albert Magalang, Chief Environmental Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Climate Change Service, said that the COP 29 still is a call for accountability, linking it with the Philippines’ perspective.

Magalang expressed that the COP 29 outcomes ‘reflect a growing recognition of the need for collective action to address the climate crisis,’ as he wrapped up his talk for the forum.

On civil society’s views, Living Laudato Si Executive Director Rodne Galicha echoed the call to approach the climate crisis by tapping the grassroot sectors and communities.

He emphasized that though there was outrage and disappointment, there still is hope, because ‘the commitment to genuine climate action and accountability is strengthened more to defend the communities served and ecosystems protected.’

Furthermore, Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Management and Reporting Unit Chief Sandee Recabar addressed the updates of the Philippines’ second submission of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC).

Her discussion on the NDC updates are in line with the Paris Agreement and its shift to a more bottom-up approach, as developed countries are being asked to commit to reduce emissions and provide support for vulnerable countries in their efforts to abide by climate targets.

Albert Magalang, Chief Environmental Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Climate Change Service, said that the Conference of Parties (COP) 29 is still a call for accountability during his discussion in the Kamayan Para sa Kalikasan forum title “Global Climate Talks: Expectations vs. Reality” held on December 20, linking it with the Philippines’ perspective.

He emphasized that the COP 29 which took place at Baku, Azerbaijan last November 11 to November 22, 2024, delivered a mix of progress and challenges with significant advancements in finance and some adaptation efforts.

On climate finance, Magalang laid out the new plan on a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance, which addresses the concern on financial gaps between developed and vulnerable countries.

Mentioning the Philippines as a vulnerable funder, he said that the country is pushing for concrete assurance in terms of loss and damage mechanisms to deliver necessary financial support.

On carbon markets or the “Article 6.2,” Magalang said that the COP 29 clarified how countries will authorize carbon credit transactions and manage tracking registries.

Especially, the need for mandatory safeguards to protect the environment and human rights, such as in instances where Indigenous Peoples’ (IP) consent is involved.

On Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), parties at the COP 29 were encouraged to update their climate commitments to be ‘more ambitious, investable, and equitable’ in line with the five-year commitments to phase out fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity.

Moreover, Magalang pointed out that despite the ambitious goal of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) in COP 26 in Glasgow to ‘urgently scale up mitigation ambition and implementation,’ progress has been limited to workshops and discussions, which only resulted in disagreements.

During COP 28 in Dubai, negotiations failed to address whether the MWP should convey strong political messages or remain strictly technical. This dispute continued at COP 29, as the inclusion of references to transitioning away from fossil fuel use was pointed out given that it remains to be a significant barrier to decarbonization.

Similar discussions occurred on the global stock take, wherein both developed and vulnerable countries pushed for stronger commitments to reduce fossil fuel use, while some countries implied the need for finance-focused discussions rather than specific fossil fuel talks.

With this, COP 30 is now said to hold more potential for renewed momentum, especially in terms of accountability and climate action.

On the gap regarding climate finance, the mechanisms for scaling and disbursing funds remain unclear. “There’s the challenge of ensuring financial commitments that should be translated into project pipelines and real action on the ground,” Magalang noted.

He also mentioned the gap on linking climate and nature, as nature was less prominent in considering biodiversity pathways with climate action.

Furthermore, Magalang said, “the forthcoming COPs need to work more closely with businesses, particularly with higher emitting sectors.”

This effort should allow businesses to ‘develop their own detailed energy transition plans and seek market-based solutions.’

Magalang concludes that the COP 29 outcomes ‘reflect a growing recognition of the need for collective action to address the climate crisis,’ as he wrapped up his talk for the forum.

Living Laudato Si Executive Director Rodne Galicha echoed civil society’s call to approach the climate crisis by tapping the grassroots in the Kamayan Para Sa Kalikasan forum titled “Global Climate Talks: Expectations vs. Reality” held on December 20, as he deduced the results of the Conference of Parties (COP) 29.

Following the COP 29 that took place at Baku, Azerbaijan last November 11 to November 22, 2024, Galicha linked the outcomes of the conference agreements to how civil society and local communities view them.

He explained that the two major climate actions: mitigation and adaptation, cannot happen without financial aid and transfer of technology, especially for vulnerable countries.

This disadvantage then opened the discussion on assigning a loss and damage mechanism. “Dapat ang malalaking bansa na naging dahilan ng malaking disasters na ito, dahil sa epekto ng krisis sa klima, ay dapat magbigay ng tulong, ayuda, to address, avert, and minimize ‘yung losses and damages natin [vulnerable countries] na nararanasan,” Galicha said.

“The developed countries that are major reasons behind disasters, because of the effects of the climate crisis, should provide help, or aid, to address, avert, and minimize the loss and damage that vulnerable countries experience,” Galicha said.]

Another strategy that had stemmed out of the COP 29 was the “just transition,” which pushes the idea that no one should be left behind, ecosystem-wise, as it is rooted in climate justice and human rights.

“Just transition” also puts into consideration the intergenerational impacts of climate actions and/or plans.

Galicha also emphasized the financial implications of the COP 29 results in his discussion of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG).

The NCQG disclosed that 300 billion dollars is the new target for developed countries to lead in helping vulnerable countries. Amplifying the position of climate justice groups, it was however raised that 300 billion dollars is not enough to support vulnerable countries and that it should be at least 1.3 trillion dollars.

Galicha said that 300 billion dollars with no guarantee of any public provision of funding will only put vulnerable countries such as the Philippines into deeper debt. Moreover, he said that the NCQG must require a loss and damage mechanism.

The carbon markets, or “Article 6.2,” was discussed, as many people, especially Indigenous communities, don’t support the idea of “carbon trading.”

Galicha raised the question on whether the counting with a centralized carbon market mechanism will be charged to the commitment of the participating countries in carbon trading to their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) or will be credited to the countries that protect thousands of hectares of forests.

To conclude his talk on civil society perspectives on the COP 29 results, he said that though there was outrage and disappointment, there still is hope, because ‘the commitment to genuine climate action and accountability is strengthened more to defend the communities served and ecosystems protected.’

He also pointed out that the COP 29 is just ‘one of the many platforms we ought to engage’ and that the conversation must continue because ‘at the end of the day, it [climate action] still is up to us.’

Furthermore, he wrapped up with a call to the governments to approach the climate crisis by opening its doors to and tapping civil society and communities.