“This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing and protect billions of lives. It will help all countries share the huge benefits of bold climate action: more jobs, stronger growth, cheaper and cleaner energy. But like any insurance policy – it only works – if the premiums are paid in full and on time.”

Rich nations pledged to contribute at least US$300 billion annually to the global fight against climate change as UN climate talks came to a contentious end early Sunday.

However, developing countries, including those in the Caribbean, had sought over one trillion dollars in assistance. They called the agreement an “insult” and argued it did not give them the vital resources they required to truly address the complexities of the climate crisis.

After two weeks of intense negotiations, delegates at COP 29 agreed to provide this funding annually, with an overall climate financing target of “at least US$1.3 trillion by 2035.”

But Stiell, a former senior Grenada government minister, acknowledged that no country got everything it wanted and that the world leaves Baku with a mountain of work to do

“So, this is no time for victory laps. We must set our sights and redouble our efforts on the road to Belém,” in the eastern Amazonian region of Brazil, which is set to host COP30 next year.

But while some delegations applauded the deal, others, especially from the developing world, expressed their deep disappointment at what they argued was an “insulting” financing target and the fact that the agreed text failed to build on an agreement passed last year calling for nations to “transition away from fossil fuels.”

“After this COP29 ends, we cannot just sail off into the sunset. We are sinking,” and the conference outcome highlighted “what a very different boat our vulnerable countries are in, compared to the developed countries,” said a representative from a group of small island nations

India’s representative strongly denounced the new goal, calling it a “paltry sum” and emphasizing. “We seek a much higher ambition from the developed countries [and the amount agreed] does not inspire trust that we will come out of this grave problem of climate change.”

Countries also agreed on the rules for a UN-backed global carbon market. This market will facilitate the trading of carbon credits, incentivizing countries to reduce emissions and invest in climate-friendly projects.

These were among the big-ticket issues decided upon at the summit, which has been ongoing since November 12. Another was the extension of a program centered on gender and climate change.

This summit had been dubbed the ‘climate finance COP,’ and representatives from all countries sought to establish a new, higher climate finance goal.

The target, or new collective qualified goal (NCQG), will replace the US$100 billion goal that will expire in 2025.

In the closing days at COP29, negotiating teams from the developed and developing worlds were deadlocked over a final deal, with reports that representatives for least developed countries and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOIS) had walked out of the talks.

Reacting to the outcome, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said that while an agreement at COP29 was essential to keeping the 1.5-degree limit alive,” I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome—on both finance and mitigation—to meet the great challenge we face.”

But he continued, saying that this agreement provided a base to build. “It must be honored in full and on time. Commitments must quickly become cash. All countries must come together to ensure the top-end of this new goal is met.”

For many vulnerable nations, it represents a glimmer of hope—but only if commitments are translated into swift action. “Commitments must quickly become cash,” the Secretary-General stressed, urging all countries to work together to meet the upper end of the new financial goal.

Beyond finance, COP29 built on previous gains in emissions reduction targets, the acceleration of the energy transition, and a long-sought agreement on carbon markets. These achievements come despite an “uncertain and divided geopolitical landscape,” which threatened to derail negotiations.