The UN Climate Conference in Baku concluded with a decision to increase climate finance to $300 billion annually by 2035, a tripling of the current commitment. However, this amount falls short of the $1.3 trillion demanded by developing nations, leading to widespread dissatisfaction. The lack of new commitments to phase out fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions further fueled criticism.
Despite the pledge, many developing countries, including small island states, expressed frustration, citing the financial goal as insufficient to meet their needs. India's representative labeled the sum "abysmally poor," while others criticized the process's transparency. The conference did not achieve a consensus on ambitious climate goals, with Saudi Arabia reportedly obstructing progress.
The "Baku to Belem roadmap" was established to explore funding possibilities, yet specific sources remain undefined. The decision encourages economically strong developing countries, including China, to voluntarily contribute.
The conference faced criticism over its management, particularly from vulnerable nations, leading to protests and walkouts. The industrial countries' insistence on including contributions from emerging economies like China only saw limited success, with voluntary pledges being suggested.
German officials acknowledged the outcomes as imperfect but workable, with Minister Baerbock calling it a "start point." Meanwhile, environmental groups and climate experts described the summit as a "diplomatic disaster," demanding new negotiation formats and fossil fuel taxation to meet financial goals.
Overall, the Baku summit highlighted the ongoing tension between developed and developing nations, with the latter feeling sidelined. The conference's compromise, though a step forward, exposed the deep divides and challenges in achieving global climate cooperation.
