COP Presidencies Troika: The Contradictory Narratives and Regressive Negotiations at COP29

The UAE, Azerbaijan, and Brazil, hosting COP28, COP29, and COP30 (respectively), wish to increase their oil and gas production by more than 30% by 2035. Not only is this contrary to the COP28’s historic pledge of “transitioning away from fossil fuels” but also against the commitment made by these nations to submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in conformity with and under the “Roadmap to Mission 1.5°C.” Additionally, it is due to this lack of determination that the “Just Transition Work Programme” has seen no progress at COP29. All in all, COP29 has set a poor precedent by regressing in these three key areas, and this regression is visible from analysing some contradictory narratives.

Formation of COP Presidencies Troika

In 2023, at COP28, all eyes were on the outcome of the first Global Stocktake, which came out for the public as decision 1/CMA.5 (the outcome). The outcome officially documented that although near-universal progress has been made towards achieving the Paris Agreement goals, the efforts are insufficient, and the States are not on track towards achieving the purposes and meeting these long-term goals under the UNFCCC. Unfortunately, the window of opportunities is narrowing, and our future generations are at risk.

To enhance global ambition, paragraph [191] of the outcome established the “Roadmap to Mission 1.5°C” and founded what is now known as the COP “Presidencies Troika”. It states that the Presidencies of the fifth, sixth, and seventh sessions of the Paris Agreement (at COP28, COP29, and COP30, respectively) will join forces…

“to significantly enhance international cooperation and the international enabling environment to stimulate ambition in the next round of nationally determined contributions (NDCs), with a view to enhancing action and implementation over this critical decade and keep 1.5°C within reach”.

Regional group members decide which country from their region will make an offer to host the upcoming COP. Subsequently, the offers from the Government of Azerbaijan to host COP29 and from the Government of Brazil to host COP30 were accepted and announced at COP28 in UAE – creating this so-called Troika.

“Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels” or Adherence to Oil and Gas Deals

According to a briefing by Oil Change International, the Troika nations (collectively) account for nearly one-third of the global carbon pollution, including the emissions from the newly approved oil and gas fields in 2024. Azerbaijan produces “only” 0.843 million barrels per day; the others, Brazil and UAE, are ranked among the top 10 oil-producing countries, producing 4.28 million and 4.16 million barrels per day (respectively).

The mainstream media scrutinised the UAE’s plans to strike oil deals at COP28. This year, again, a senior official from Azerbaijan’s COP29 team was criticised for using his role to promote oil and gas deals. However, during his opening speech at COP29, President Ilham Aliyev responded to the criticisms by providing justifications that Azerbaijan’s oil and gas production only amounts to around 0.8% of the global market and that any denunciation coming from a State that “produces 30 times more oil than Azerbaijan” is not acceptable. Nonetheless, what added insult to injury was when Azerbaijan’s President stated that natural sources such as oil and gas are “gift of God” and “countries should not be blamed for having them and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market”.

Unpacking Aliyev’s statement, it is agreeable that Azerbaijan is not among the main culprits when it comes to fossil fuels; however, it is perplexing to comprehend how Mr Aliyev sees natural sources such as “wind” and “sun” as being equal to “oil” and “gas”. One can say that wind and sun are gifts of God, they naturally serve mankind, are readily available without human activity/involvement, and can be effectively utilised to tackle climate change – the same cannot be said for oil and gas.

It is also agreeable that a country should not be blamed for naturally having these resources; however, looking at climate change as a global emergency, a country should be held accountable for bringing oil and gas to the international market against the commitments they have made in their NDCs and using forums such as COP to promote the fossil fuel deals.

So, looking at such contradictory narratives and practices, it seems that last year’s promise of transitioning away from fossil fuels, in reality, means nothing. In recent years, the Troika Nations have significantly increased the number of their delegation being sent to COPs. It would not be wrong to say that it is due to the lobbying impact of this majority that State parties at COP29 failed to reach an agreement on how the pledge to transition away from fossil fuels should be taken forward.

This was the key area expected to be strengthened at COP29; however, the omission of this pledge from the final decisions text is not only a reversal of the progress made at COP28 but also a clear violation of the previous agreement. Now, it is said that state parties will take this forward next year at COP30 in Brazil; however, given Brazil’s greater conflict of interest in relation to the fossil fuel industry, it is highly unlikely that this will progress ambitiously.

“Roadmap to Mission 1.5°C” and the Warmest Year on Record

The roadmap to mission 1.5°C essentially requires the submission of NDCs aligned with the 1.5°C temperature limit, and as outlined above, Troika nations are supposed to play a major role in achieving this under para [191]. NDCs are, as Simon Stiell highlighted, “among the most important climate documents produced this century”, and it is also established how NDCs should be seen as ‘prescribed qualified unilateral acts in international law’. Consequently, the minimum requirement for the implementation of all the crucial decisions around 1.5°C is to immediately end the approval of new fossil fuel projects and to include these commitments in the NDCs.

At COP29, on its first day, the presentation of the State of the Climate 2024 report by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) highlighted that the year 2024 is the hottest year on record with a global average temperature of 1.54°C above the pre-industrial baseline. The following day, the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative published its State of the Cryosphere 2024 report, entitled “Lost Ice, Global Damage”. At the Cryosphere Pavilion, scientists delivered a media briefing outlining key findings from the report that the current climate commitments, leading the world to well over 2°C of warming, would bring disastrous and irreversible consequences for billions of people.

Accordingly, the NDCs to be submitted in 2025 (also known as NDCs 3.0) are to be informed by the outcome (para [169] of the outcome (1.CMA/5) as highlighted in the beginning). NDCs 3.0 needs to be more progressive and ambitious than the current NDCs and the next round may be the last chance to put the world on track with a global emission trajectory in line with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. Nonetheless, in light of what is discussed so far, it is impossible for the Troika nations (and some others) to submit their NDCs in a progressive manner – and if their NDCs are seen to be (superficially) ambitious, they will be deceiving and contradictory to the true state of affairs.

Para [186] of the outcome (1.CMA/5) “invites…relevant work programmes” to integrate “relevant outcomes” into their future work. Accordingly, the COP29 negotiations around NDCs also contended whether the relevant work programme (i.e., the  Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme (MWP)) should mention “the relevant outcomes” – such as “transitioning away from fossil fuels”. Unfortunately, one of the major failures of COP29 is that the State parties were unable to agree on further guidance for the NDCs 3.0. The MWP text does not mention anything about the global stocktake or fossil fuels, and only “reaffirms” the “nationally determined nature” of the NDCs.

Regrettably, despite the clear scientific evidence, and the occurrence of unprecedented extreme weather events, and the ever-increasing need to overcome the implementation gap in the NDCs,  the “roadmap to mission 1.5°C”, that was envisioned when the COP Presidencies Troika was formed is severely undermined at COP29.

Transitioning Away from the Just Transition Work Programme

Under the Sharm el-Sheikh implementation plan (the plan) at COP27 in Egypt, the fourth session of the CMA (Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement) established a work programme on just transition pathways (JTWP). Under para [53] of the plan, and “as part of the work programme on just transition, an annual high-level ministerial round table on just transition” was convened at COP28. The intention was to prepare the JTWP activities for the next five years, and the final text at COP28 ended up including the terminology of “human rights”, “indigenous rights”, and (historically) “labour rights”.

However, COP29 failed to produce any agreement on the JTWP. We, the Durham University Delegates, observed the (poor and slow) negotiations around the JTWP during the first week of COP29. Subsequently, in the closing plenary of the first week, the co-chairs announced that there was no agreement on the JTWP. It was forwarded to the second week of COP29 for further negotiations; nonetheless, there was near silence on the JTWP. 

It was clear that the COP29 presidency failed to provide adequate support around the JTWP. As per the ECO – NGO Newsletter (distributed daily at COP29), ‘one of the most promising pieces to deliver justice (the JTWP) under the Paris Agreement might be lost, without even a country to blame. This is due to the fact that the parties were prepared to work on the JTWP, but the COP29 presidency was “unwilling or unable” to open and monitor any negotiations around it.

Final Remarks – Recognising our Conscientious Obligations

It was observed last year that the global fight against climate change is now perceived as a call of conscience and a sacred duty instilled by faith. Human activity at the industrial scale is responsible for the disorder on land and sea, and after seeing the catastrophic impacts and the global calamities, the States should now take action to avoid the harms that are associated with the fossil fuel industry. The failure of environmental actions and the disregard for scientific knowledge are due to the failure to bring a revolutionary change within ourselves – and to simply practice and fulfil what we promise and commit.

A change of mindset is required at the individual level, and this particular insight is missing from all the environmental saving efforts at the global scale. We cannot address the emerging environmental (and some other) calamities without employing our intellect and conscience with all sincerity.