International climate conferences such as the COP provide a platform for ground-breaking negotiations on global climate action. They bring together representatives from politics, business and civil society from all over the world to discuss the most pressing climate issues. In this interview with Dr Michael Kalis, Head of the IKEM Research Academy, who was at COP in Baku, we gather fascinating insights into the key challenges of the negotiations and the IKEM side events.
You were on site at COP29 in Baku. What was the atmosphere like?
The mood was extremely varied and divided. On the one hand, there were a lot of hopes and demands associated with the COP. Of course, it is difficult to summarise the multitude of impressions, as they depend heavily on one’s own subjective perception. What is clear, however, is that this COP was not characterized by a strong climate protection narrative, particularly on the part of the host. Outside of the Blue and Green Zones, i.e. the COP venue, the city of Baku appeared well organized, although it was also dominated by a massive police presence.
What do you make of the role of the host country, Azerbaijan?
The host failed to fulfil the hopes and demands associated with COP29. Instead, Azerbaijan opted for contradictory narratives, especially towards the Global North and the fossil fuel industry. There was a lack of clear commitment to ambitious climate action, which meant that the host country was perceived more as an obstacle to progressive negotiations.
What topics were at the heart of the negotiations this year?
As was the case at previous COPs, a central focus was on climate financing. A great deal of money is needed here for green technologies, adaptation measures, and other climate protection projects. Given the urgency of these financial flows, climate finance is the key issue that needs to be resolved. The negotiations on this issue continue to be strongly characterized by conflicts between the Global North and the Global South, particularly with regard to the amount and distribution of financial resources. These questions of financing must not stall global climate policy. Other key topics discussed at COP were ‘loss and damage’, i.e. compensation for climate-related damage, and related issues of climate justice. As the 1.5-degree target now seems almost unachievable, there was also an increased focus on climate adaptation. One of the achievements of the COP was the clarification of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which deals with the carbon market. Almost 10 years after the Paris Agreement, all the key details of this article have finally been clarified and it has now become a matter of implementation. In contrast, the transition away from fossil fuels, which was agreed at COP28 last year, has not been further specified in its implementation. This means that the long overdue decision to phase out fossil fuels globally has been postponed once again.
What was the focus of IKEM’s side events and what insights did you gain from them?
IKEM was also present at the COP this year with various side events. An event was held in the Ukrainian pavilion with representatives from EUETH, the European Commission and the Ukrainian government, which focused on the energy transition and the reconstruction of energy infrastructure in Ukraine. Another side event, which was organised together with the OSCE, dealt with the energy-climate-security nexus in the context of the Russian war of aggression, the energy crisis and the situation in the Baltic Sea region. There was also a side event on nature restoration and the role of peatlands, both in the EU and with regard to post-war recovery in Ukraine.
