COP29 at a glance: The missing links in the climate finance debate

As COP29 enters its final moments, today’s spotlight was meant to be on Nature Day; a crucial opportunity to underscore the role of ecosystems and Indigenous leadership in climate action. Yet, the summit is consumed by a more immediate and contentious issue. With just days left before the scheduled conclusion, the negotiations are mired in division, and the latest draft text – released at 7 this morning – has only deepened the stalemate. 

The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), required under the Paris Agreement, is supposed to set an annual funding target to help developing countries address the climate crisis. Developing nations are calling for at least $1 trillion annually, with most of it as grants from wealthy countries. Yet, instead of committing to concrete numbers, the draft text presents placeholder "X" figures and outlines two polarised options – leaving little room for compromise. Even more troubling, key aspects of the climate agenda, such as the transition away from fossil fuels, are conspicuously absent. You’d hope that after all this time, we’d at least get a proposal that leaves someone happy – but here we are. 

Nature’s neglect 

This finance debate is about more than just numbers; it’s about the direction and priorities that will determine whether we can address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss in a manner that is just and equitable. Yet, nature-based solutions (NbS), which estimates suggest could deliver up to one-third of the emissions reductions needed by 2030, remain severely underfunded and underemphasised.  

Nature has been recognised increasingly not just as a victim of climate change but as a critical solution. From forests and wetlands to sustainable agriculture, ecosystems play a vital role in sequestering carbon, building resilience, and supporting livelihoods. Yet, too often, NbS is routinely sidelined in national climate plans and multilateral finance frameworks. 

An open letter from nearly 70 organisations, coordinated by Nature4Climate, issued a stark warning this week: failing to adequately finance nature risks undermines global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. “Healthy ecosystems are not merely co-benefits – they are cost-effective climate solutions that urgently need dedicated funding,” the signatories argue. This is not just an environmental issue; it is a moral imperative. Wealthier nations, who have historically been the largest contributors to the climate crisis, are not paying their fair share to support the solutions most urgently needed by the world’s most vulnerable populations. 

Yet, the numbers tell a grim story. Only $200 billion per year is allocated to NbS globally, compared to a staggering $7 trillion spent on activities that harm nature. Indigenous Peoples – who protect nearly 80% of the remaining biodiversity on Earth – receive less than 1% of global climate finance. This gross imbalance is as inequitable as it is inefficient, given the essential role these communities play in preserving ecosystems and combating deforestation. The failure to fund NbS properly is, therefore, not only a missed opportunity but an act of climate injustice. 

Right your wrongs 

Developing countries in the Global South, whichare least responsible for the climate crisis, suffer its most severe impacts. Meanwhile, wealthy nations, the main contributors to the emergency, have failed to meet their financial commitments. Adding to this imbalance, emerging nations such as China and India, with growing economies and emissions, are in their own category of “developing nations”, which some believe is outdated and should, instead, take on more responsibility in providing climate finance.  

Finance must prioritise the communities that have been at the frontline of climate action for decades, particularly Indigenous Peoples and local communities. They’ve long had the solutions – even before we coined the term “nature-based solutions” in the late 2000s. What they lack is a platform to be heard and it seems Baku didn’t provide that for them.