‘We acted like beggars  at COP29, paid dearly’

The first COP kicked off in Berlin in 1995, and they've met every year since, hashing out deals, setting emissions goals, and occasionally arguing over who’s footing the bill. Think of it as the planet's most high-stakes group project. 

The 29th edition, COP29, continued this legacy in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, with nations aiming (again) to put action behind promises to keep the planet from overheating. 
 I met Mr Robert Turyakira, one of Uganda’s most outspoken defenders of the environment and climate justice, to discuss the outcomes of COP29 in Baku.

Mr Turyakira, who is the deputy executive director of Environment Shield, nearly missed the physical meetings but managed to stay engaged, following the proceedings online and leading a section of the team that was present there.

Missed targets

The Paris Agreement, with its foundational principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and voluntary Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), underscores the global commitment to emission reduction.

Uganda, for instance, pledged to cut emissions by 22 percent by 2020 and raised that goal to 24.7 percent by 2030 at COP27. 
Despite these ambitious targets, securing funding remains a major hurdle, with adaptation funds trickling in far slower than needed.
At COP28 in Dubai, the spotlight shifted to Africa’s unique dilemma: balancing energy poverty with global calls to phase out fossil fuels. 

“For us, it’s not just about cutting emissions,” says Mr Turyakira. “It’s about ensuring millions of Ugandans relying on charcoal and firewood have sustainable alternatives. The Global North had fossil fuels to develop; we’re being told to forgo them without viable solutions.”
The energy transition, he adds, isn’t just a climate issue—it’s a survival strategy for the Global South, where mitigation must meet adaptation head-on.

COP29

The latest COP circled three critical themes: money, fossil fuels, and fairness.
First, climate financing. Talks began ambitiously, targeting $1.8 trillion, before settling on $1.3 trillion—a figure that still met resistance from the Global North.
Second, the fossil fuel debate: while Northern countries push for a phase-out, the Global South advocates for a phase-down, citing the double standard of rich nations still tapping into their fossil reserves.

As Mr Turyakira observes, “How can we leapfrog development when they’re holding onto the ladder?”
With the focus on emissions reduction firmly established, the conversation naturally shifted to adaptation—a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of climate policy.
For the Global South, including Uganda, adapting to climate impacts is not just a matter of survival but also a strategic necessity.

Then a $745 million pledge in COP29 came up, but housing the fund under the World Bank raised eyebrows over accessibility and transparency. 
“If the money is there but wrapped in bureaucracy, it’s as good as unavailable,” he notes.
As COP29 closed, the Global North committed $300 billion by 2035. But for many in the Global South, this offer fell short—both in size and urgency. 
The frustration culminated in walkouts, highlighting the widening rift in these high-stakes negotiations.

“And we think that we need to continue pushing as we head to COP30 to look at the $300 billion that has been pledged, how it can be made available, but also we have to continue negotiating for more,” says Mr Turyakira.

Adaptation vs mitigation

Currently, the climate fight presents a delicate balancing act between adaptation and mitigation. Globally, the Global North and Global South are taking divergent approaches, often to the detriment of collective progress. 

In the Global North, much of the focus is on mitigation, which involves reducing emissions. 
In contrast, the Global South emphasises adaptation, aiming to build resilience in communities to cope with the effects of climate change. 
This divergence is evident in the climate indices of many countries, with the Global South prioritising adaptation. 

Uganda’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) framework, for example, sets an ambitious target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 24.7 percent but dedicates more than 80 percent of its focus to adaptation efforts. 
Key areas like agroforestry, agriculture, and land use underline this focus, reflecting the country’s dependence on nature-based solutions.

The funding imbalance further complicates matters. Most global climate financing is directed toward mitigation, leaving adaptation efforts underfunded despite their critical importance in the Global South. 

Countries like Uganda, which contribute only about three to four percent of global emissions, bear the brunt of climate impacts while receiving limited funding to build adaptive capacity.
This is paradoxical, considering the Global South’s significant contribution to carbon sequestration through natural forests and agroforestry. 

Additionally, the Global North, where more than 55 percent of emissions come from nations like the US and China, often channels more resources into mitigation projects, neglecting the pressing need for adaptation funding.

“To address this imbalance, Uganda’s NDC revision provides an opportunity to recalibrate priorities. While adaptation remains crucial, incorporating more mitigation measures could align the country with funding streams and support emerging frameworks like carbon trading,” Mr Turyakira says.

“This approach could involve promoting clean cooking technologies, transitioning from charcoal and firewood to cleaner alternatives, and leveraging carbon trade opportunities,” he adds.

Notably, Uganda’s National Climate Change Act requires the development of a regulatory framework for carbon trading, which the Ministry of Water and Environment is currently working on. 

This framework, as Mr Turyakira says, must harmonise with international standards, as established under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, to ensure inclusivity and protect vulnerable communities.

Choosing adaptation

The heavy reliance on adaptation in Uganda’s NDC is understandable. It stems from its economic structure and climate vulnerability. Agriculture, employing more than 70 percent of Ugandans, is particularly susceptible to climate change.

This prioritisation of adaptation aligns with efforts to build capacity in this sector, focusing on agroforestry, resilient farming practices, and nature-based solutions. 
This approach also reflects an expectation to access funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Adaptation Fund. But lately, countries in the Global South, including Uganda, have been vocal in advocating for these resources to cope with climate impacts. 

The beauty with adaptation is that it not only addresses immediate challenges, but also lays the groundwork for sustainable development through nature-based solutions in agriculture and beyond.

“And that is why the Climate Finance Unit under the Finance ministry must step up. About 15 percent of the necessary funding should be mobilised domestically within our NDC framework. We need to capitalise on our competitive advantages—our wetlands and forest cover.

These ecosystems act as natural carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. If we can measure how much carbon dioxide is sequestered by our wetlands and forests, we can leverage that data to negotiate better deals for our country,” says Mr Turyakira.

“When we head to COP30, we shouldn’t appear as beggars. At COP29, it felt as if countries from the Global South were pleading, as though the Global North was doing us a favour. But in reality, we’re the ones absorbing greenhouse gases caused by industrialisation in Europe, America, and China. We must enter negotiations with confidence, showing that we’re not only key players in adaptation and mitigation but also the custodians of the forests and wetlands—nature’s carbon sinks—essential for the global climate fight,” he adds.

Innovation

While securing adequate adaptation funding remains a challenge, Uganda's path forward also requires harnessing innovative solutions to reduce costs and boost resilience.
What innovative solutions can Uganda use to cut adaptation costs? Trade carbon, Mr Turyakira responds.

“With $300 billion emerging from COP29, Uganda must revisit its blueprint for critical sectors like transportation, energy, housing, and agriculture,” he suggests. 
One urgent area is reducing reliance on biomass, currently used by 75 percent of the population, he adds, noting that promoting clean cooking solutions, such as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), could protect forest cover. 

Currently, national statistics show that only 0.8 percent of Ugandans use LPG. By cutting taxes, incentivising local production of gas cylinders and lowering prices, Mr Turyakira believes urban households can transition to cleaner energy sources.
 Innovation is key, he maintains, emphasising support for young entrepreneurs in green businesses and private sector involvement.

“Carbon trading mechanisms can help fund initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we must be deliberate in supporting these innovations,” he says.
He further reveals that Uganda’s energy transition plan aims to shift the country from biomass reliance to cleaner options, including hydroelectric and solar power.
Although Uganda generates 2,000 MW of electricity, the plan envisions 52,000 MW by 2040. Achieving this requires reducing the cost of hydroelectricity—used by 90 percent of Ugandans—and expanding access to solar energy. 

“Solar is a low-hanging fruit for Uganda, with our equatorial location offering abundant sunshine,” Mr Turyakira notes, citing ongoing projects in Kabulasoke of 20MW on an area of over 130 acres of land. 
Rural communities, in particular, need affordable solar energy to facilitate this transition by 2030.
 On the employment front, he stresses green jobs as a solution to unemployment.

“Budget 2025/2026 must prioritise green businesses. Unemployment drives activities like charcoal burning and wetland encroachment. Supporting young innovators with incentives could create sustainable livelihoods while safeguarding our environment,” Mr Turyakira says.