COP29: limited wins for water and a failure to support communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis
Water gained visibility and progress was made on key adaptation goals at COP29. But a disappointing deal on global climate finance means many communities will be left to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change without the financial and practical support they need.
The UN’s annual climate summit was, once again, a mixed bag for water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH). While there were some small wins, the outcome was largely a disappointment.
Successes include the launch of the COP29 Declaration on Water for Climate Action, increased and thoughtful engagement on WASH, and some positive progress on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA). Water was also much more prominent outside of its usual bubble, with twice as many events on water held outside the Water Pavilion as inside. All of this points to a growing awareness of the role of water in international climate action.
However, these successes were overshadowed by a shameful outcome on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), which was only reached after a difficult and exclusionary process. Negotiations were heated and ignored the contributions of developing countries, constituencies and civil society organisations (CSOs), once again revealing the power games at play in international climate decisions. This inadequate outcome means many communities will be left to face the impacts of a climate crisis they didn't cause, without the financial and practical support they need.
Many delegates emphasised the importance of equity, prioritising marginalised communities and leveraging Indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainable, culturally relevant and transformative action. However, formalising these priorities with real accountability was contentious, and clear commitments to processes, finance, and language that would enable such action were absent from many of the final outcomes.
A global climate finance goal that won’t deliver for frontline communities
The most eagerly awaited decision of COP29, and the reason it was dubbed “the finance COP”, the NCQG established a new financial target for developed countries to provide to developing nations for climate action. The NCQG is an update of the previous target of US$100bn per year, which expires in 2025, and was supposed to infuse new momentum in the global effort to address climate change.
After a fraught negotiation process that dragged past the formal closure of the summit, an agreement was reached that satisfied almost no one: $300bn per year would be provided annually by 2035. This paltry figure was a last-minute concession from developed countries, which originally offered $250bn, and was met with public derision by India as well as a walkout from climate-vulnerable nations.
$300bn is a small fraction of the $1.3 trillion experts say is needed and only half the minimum threshold that needs to come directly from developed countries. The $1.3 trillion is acknowledged in the text with a vague call to “all actors” to scale up funds from “all public and private sources” to meet that goal by 2035, but carries no real accountability.
The NCQG also fails to include separate subgoals for adaptation and mitigation, which we have long considered critical for achieving adequate investment in adaptation. Instead, it repeats the same general call for a “balance” between adaptation and mitigation – a recommendation that has never resulted in anything near equal investment.
The language of the agreement further waters down the obligation of countries to provide the $300bn in climate finance, by indicating they will “take the lead” in raising the amount from a “wide variety of sources”. This means that when the annual target is not met – a disappointing but well-established precedent – the countries expected to provide this finance can deflect accountability by insisting the money was never supposed to come entirely from them.
Some of this funding will also include private sector finance associated with climate projects partly funded by multilateral development banks or bilateral finance. Problematically, private finance is overwhelmingly provided as loans, which adds to developing countries’ debt burden while being hit by more severe and frequent weather events caused by climate change. Adaptation efforts are frequently less suitable for private finance and depend more on the grants and concessional loans that governments and development actors can provide.
Without the strong UNFCCC imperative to mobilise much-needed finance, we and other stakeholders must now increase our advocacy efforts to ensure adaptation finance does not fall by the wayside, and identify ways to attract more private finance into the space.
A critical finance gap for national adaptation and mitigation plans
The disappointing outcome of the NCQG also raises critical concerns around how countries will finance their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).
For developing countries and many CSOs, the implications of the finance gap are dire. Nations already affected by the severe impacts of climate change will struggle to cut emissions, adapt to changes, and address the escalating costs of extreme events – crises they largely did not cause. These same countries are also expected to update their NDCs and formulate their NAPs even as the initial 1.5°C global warming target appears increasingly unattainable.
As the focus shifts toward COP30 in Belem, nations must ensure their NDCs and NAPs align with national priorities and attract climate funding. This challenge is particularly acute in the WASH sector, with studies revealing that WASH has not yet been sufficiently integrated into NDCs and NAPs. As nations prepare to revise their NDCs and formulate NAPs, there is a significant need to advocate for developing nations to prioritise integrating WASH, and to incorporate climate considerations into WASH strategies.
COP29 has provided a foundation for this work, but meaningful progress needs persistent advocacy, innovative partnerships, and an unwavering commitment to climate justice.
Mixed progress on global adaptation efforts
Negotiations on the GGA – and specifically the work programme to agree the UAE Framework for Global Climate Resilience – produced mixed results. Parties successfully nailed down a clearer process and guidelines for selected experts to suggest indicators to measure progress against the seven thematic targets. This not only gives them a strong position to agree on the final milestones at COP30 next year, but also highlights the need to include stakeholders other than national delegations, and emphasises the need to work across the targets to find synergies between them. This is particularly advantageous for water, given its cross-sectoral nature.
There was also an important recognition of the need to connect the GGA to finance, leading to an agreement that the indicators would include measures to track whether sufficient finance has been provided to reach the goal.
Another welcome development is that the dialogue emphasised equity, prioritising marginalised communities and leveraging Indigenous knowledge to ensure adaptation measures are sustainable and culturally relevant.
However, decisions did not include any concrete or quantitative financial commitments for supporting the implementation of the GGA – and with no adaptation subgoal in the NCQG, it remains unclear how these efforts will be funded. What’s more, it was decided that reporting on the indicators would be optional, meaning countries can pick and choose which measures they report on, making it harder to see global progress and – most alarmingly – allowing countries to hide where they are doing badly.
A tricky path for Loss and Damage
While our priority at COP29 was adaptation, Loss and Damage was also a key area for many of our country teams. There were mixed outcomes, with significant steps forward but notable gaps, particularly around the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR).
On the positive side, the Loss and Damage Fund, a major outcome of COP28, was officially brought into operation. This aligns with the principle of CBDR by recognising the role of wealthier nations to support those most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The first disbursements are expected in 2025, marking a tangible step forward.
Another welcome outcome is the expanded role of the Santiago Network – a collaborative project that aims to help developing countries address loss and damage caused by climate change – to strengthen technical and institutional capacity in developing nations. This reflects the differentiated needs and priorities of these nations, consistent with CBDR.
Developed countries also made additional pledges to the fund, acknowledging their historical emissions and greater capacity to provide financial resources.
However, the Loss and Damage Fund remains painfully underfunded, with the overall total only increasing from $674m to $759m at COP29 – a difference of only $85 million. This is far below the estimated annual requirement of hundreds of billions and undermines the CBDR principle by leaving vulnerable nations without adequate support.
Another negative outcome is that wealthier nations have not provided funding proportional to their historical role or financial capacity. This disparity has fuelled frustration among developing nations and weakened trust in the process. What’s more, no clear or predictable funding structure has been established. Without a dependable pipeline of resources, vulnerable countries are left uncertain about long-term support.
The outcomes of COP29 underscore the ongoing challenges in implementing CBDR. While developed countries acknowledged their greater responsibilities, their actions fell short of what is needed to fully address the loss and damage requirements of poorer nations. Moving forward, the principle must be more robustly reflected in financial contributions and operational frameworks to ensure equitable support for those most affected.
Many attendees left COP29 with heavy hearts, as the opportunity to strengthen climate action for the poorest and most vulnerable was missed.
Going forward, it is crucial that we continue to strengthen action under the Paris Agreement, including through increased finance for adaptation, agreeing strong indicators for the GGA and integrating water into climate action. There are many opportunities to do this before COP30, including the One Water Summit and UNCCD COP next month, the Bonn Intersessional meetings in June and the regional climate weeks.
We will continue to pursue our goals of delivering climate-resilient WASH for all, by partnering with governments and stakeholders to integrate WASH into NDCs and NAPs, by shaping the outcomes of the GGA, by building an understanding of and support for climate-resilient WASH, and by working to improve access to high-quality climate finance.
And as a central thread of this work, we will continue to prioritise and amplify the needs and voices of those who have contributed the least to the climate crisis, but are impacted the most.
This blog was written by Moreblessings Chidaushe, Julie Henri, Tove Lexén, Lesley Pories, Adnan Ibne Abdul Qader, Hantaniaina Rabesandratana and Helen Rumford.
Top image: A woman walks along the dried-up bed of the Mandrare river, with a basket on her head in Amboasary, Anosy Region, Madagascar. September 2021.
