COP29: THE COP OF UNCERTAINTY, DIVISIONS AND FALSE SOLUTIONS
As COP29 comes to a close, the sense of frustration and disappointment is evident. Developing countries, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society have expressed outrage at the agreed figures for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), decrying it as insufficient to meet the scale of the climate crisis. Looking back, many Indigenous leaders who attended the summit referred to it as the COP of uncertainty, divisions, and false solutions. The final plenary saw key agenda items gaveled through despite strong opposition, further deepening dissatisfaction. The COP presidency’s remarks on oil and gas as "gifts from God" struck a dissonant chord, particularly in a forum grappling with the devastating impacts of fossil fuels. Additionally, at least 1700 coal, oil and gas lobbyists reportedly attended the meeting, symbolizing the entrenched interests undermining urgent climate action.
One of the most contentious outcomes was the agreement on Article 6, which governs international carbon markets and has been flagged as a potential avenue for false solutions. Concerns about Article 6 stem from its inclusion of mechanisms such as offsets and carbon trading, which often lack robust safeguards for human rights and environmental integrity. These mechanisms risk enabling polluters to continue emitting while claiming compliance through questionable credits.
This fractured environment underscores deeper challenges within global climate negotiations. Multilateralism, a cornerstone of international cooperation, appears increasingly fragile at a time when it is urgently needed to address the escalating climate crisis. Political shifts, such as election outcomes in the U.S. and the withdrawal of Argentina’s delegation from COP29, exacerbate fears of a retreat from collective action. Too often, multilateralism is invoked by global powers as a rhetorical tool while falling short in practice, particularly when it comes to honoring financial and climate commitments. In this atmosphere of diminished trust, solidarity takes on even greater importance—solidarity among nations, communities, with our non-human kin and with the Earth. This collective spirit remains a vital counterbalance to inaction, offering hope for advancing equitable and effective climate solutions.
The SIRGE Coalition was on the ground at COP29, monitoring key agenda items including the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, the Just Transition Work Programme, and discussions around transition minerals. This report focuses on these critical areas of engagement.
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG): Profitability over Equity
The New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of $300 billion per year by 2035 is insufficient when compared to the actual financial needs of developing countries, as highlighted in their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). Reported cost needs for implementing NDCs range from $5.1–6.8 trillion by 2030, translating to $455–584 billion annually for mitigation. Additionally, adaptation finance alone requires $215–387 billion per year, reflecting a separate, critical funding gap. Together, these figures far exceed the NCQG target and underscore the scale of the shortfall in climate finance commitments. Furthermore, when adjusted for inflation, the original $100 billion pledge made in 2009 equates to approximately $200 billion in 2035 dollars, making the NCQG’s $300 billion goal only a modest real increase that fails to account for the rapidly growing costs of climate action. The decision’s emphasis on mobilizing $1.3 trillion from "all sources" dilutes developed countries’ responsibilities and shifts the burden to private and alternative sources, which often prioritize profit over equity and accessibility. This glaring disparity becomes even starker when considering fossil fuel subsidies, which, in 2022, amounted to an astonishing $7 trillion, fueling the very emissions driving the climate crisis. Finance for climate action must, at a minimum, match or exceed these subsidies to ensure a just and equitable response.
In addition to falling short on quantity, the NCQG fails to address the quality of finance. Past assessments of the $100 billion target revealed that up to 70% of climate finance was delivered as loans, many of which were non-concessional, creating a debt burden for developing nations. The NCQG decision acknowledges the need for grants and non-debt-inducing instruments but offers no guarantees, leaving the composition of the $300 billion largely undefined. While the decision mentions Indigenous Peoples and highlights the importance of adaptation finance, there is no dedicated funding stream for Indigenous communities or assurance of direct access to resources. With adaptation needs alone costing nearly as much as the entire NCQG target, and significant gaps remaining in support for loss and damage, the decision risks perpetuating inequities and underfunding that compromise the ability of the most vulnerable countries and communities to address the climate crisis.
Indigenous Peoples’ Position on the NCQG: Qualitative Elements and Rights Protections
Indigenous’ Peoples position on climate finance was made clear at COP29. Climate finance must not fund initiatives that violate Indigenous rights, such as those tied to carbon markets, offsets, or geoengineering, which often perpetuate harm to Indigenous lands, livelihoods, and communities. Similarly, the extraction of energy transition minerals, despite its role in renewable energy technologies, must be excluded from climate finance if it results in environmental destruction, land grabbing, forced evictions, or the criminalization of Indigenous human rights defenders. Indigenous Peoples unequivocally reject the use of loans, export credit agency financing, or other mechanisms that exacerbate debt or exploitative practices.
A just NCQG must uphold Indigenous rights and prioritize direct, grant-based financing. Indigenous Peoples call on UNFCCC operating entities, such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Loss and Damage Fund (FRLD), to establish dedicated programs for equitable and simplified access to climate finance. These arrangements must minimize intermediaries and bureaucratic barriers, ensuring that funds reach Indigenous communities intact and without punitive conditions. Direct access would enable long-term, scalable solutions rooted in Indigenous knowledge and participation at all decision-making levels, strengthening sustainable climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Furthermore, Indigenous Peoples oppose reliance on private investments derived from carbon markets or other profit-driven mechanisms that divert public funding commitments from developed countries. A just NCQG demands robust public commitments anchored in justice, accountability, transparency, and respect for Indigenous Peoples' fundamental rights.
Just Transition Work Programme
The Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) was established at COP27 in 2022 and further defined at COP28 in 2023. At COP29, the JTWP continued to be a focal point of discussions, with parties working to advance its implementation.
The Programme, meant to guide equitable climate transitions, failed to reach a decision due to significant disagreements, including resistance from some countries to include language on phasing out fossil fuels. Regrettably, many parties challenged the inclusion of human rights, Indigenous rights, clean and healthy environment rights. This opposition undermines the programme's credibility, as phasing out fossil fuels and upholding human rights are fundamental to achieving a just transition. While the JTWP acknowledges Indigenous Peoples as stakeholders, it lacks specific safeguards to uphold their rights, including Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as outlined in UNDRIP. Indigenous Peoples are not stakeholders, but rights holders. Although the last iteration of the text contains a reference on phasing out fossil fuels, the text is not agreed to and negotiations will continue next week. Without explicit commitments to phase out fossil fuels or protect Indigenous rights, the JTWP risks enabling harmful extractive practices under the guise of transition projects, leaving Indigenous communities vulnerable to rights violations.
Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: Carbon Offsets Are not a Real Solution
At COP29, discussions around the finalization of rules under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which governs international carbon markets, have sparked significant concerns among Indigenous Peoples. While these mechanisms are designed to promote global emission reductions, they often fail to incorporate robust safeguards for protecting Indigenous rights, particularly the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The lack of explicit protections creates a risk that projects implemented under these frameworks may encroach on Indigenous territories, leading to land dispossession, environmental harm, and the erosion of cultural heritage.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of carbon credits in achieving real emission reductions is under question. Research published in Nature has found that only 16% of carbon credits represent genuine reductions in emissions, raising doubts about the credibility of these markets in addressing the climate crisis. This limited effectiveness not only undermines global climate targets but also perpetuates solutions that may harm Indigenous communities. Indigenous leaders and organizations have repeatedly called for climate action frameworks that prioritize their rights and recognize their knowledge systems, ensuring that market-based mechanisms do not compromise their rights or well-being.
Transition Minerals: The Mining Industry is All In
During the first week of COP29, the UN Secretary-General launched the report from the Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals, emphasizing the growing importance of these resources in achieving a green economy. Transition minerals were a recurring theme throughout the conference, with numerous side events focusing on minerals needed for the transition, and mining standards and certification schemes. The mining industry is all in on this narrative that mining is absolutely essential for a clean energy economy, while very little attention has been placed on the issues of reducing demand and circularity. Evidence shows that the current frameworks of extraction, processing and disposing of minerals is already contributing to the climate crisis, causing environmental harm and violating human rights. The SIRGE Coalition actively participated, challenging harmful narratives and exposing loopholes in proposed standards and certification schemes that put Indigenous communities at risk.
As highlighted in these discussions, the scale of mining required to support the green energy transition is staggering. However, voluntary standards and certification schemes alone cannot provide the necessary safeguards. They often fall short of addressing the structural issues that leave Indigenous Peoples vulnerable. This underscores the need for legally binding instruments at the national and international levels to protect Indigenous rights and ensure meaningful accountability. Institutionalizing the UN Secretary-General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals is a critical step in this direction, alongside advocating for robust legal protections for Indigenous communities impacted by mining activities.
Watch the press conference about advancing the recommendations from the UN Secretary General’s Panel on Critical Energy Transition Minerals in Africa and Latin America here.
SIRGE Coalition at COP29
The SIRGE Coalition played an active role at COP29, organizing, co-organizing, and participating in several side events and press conferences focused on upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the just energy transition and the supply chains of transition minerals. We also proudly disseminated the Indigenous Peoples Principles and Protocols for Just Transition, the outcome document from the Indigenous Summit on Just Transition held in Geneva this past October.
It is an honor to be part of the ongoing fight for the recognition and implementation of Indigenous rights in global climate action. As echoed during the People’s Plenary, “the path forward is clear, but it won’t be easy.” Yet, we are far from hopeless, and we are never alone—the power of our ancestors and the strength of the land continue to guide us. Reflecting on the closing statement from the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change, “there is nothing to celebrate here,” we are reminded that the struggle is far from over. As we look ahead to COP30 in Brazil, our resolve is stronger than ever to ensure Indigenous Peoples’ participation and rights are further elevated and protected.
