COP29: The choice of host country repressed civil liberties for the third consecutive year

Author: Emira Ben Amara

January 28, 2025

[Image credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth]

The United Nations Climate Change Conference (UNCCC) has numerous authoritarian host countries, which often act with hostility against local environmental activists. This year’s host, Azerbaijan, was no exception. The conclusion of COP29 on November 22, 2024 invites us to examine the impact it had on the ultimate conference, how it compares to previous ones, and what it might mean for the future of the world’s most significant climate negotiations.

Background: concerns leading up to the conference

In the months leading up to the conference, rights groups and environmental advocates expressed disapproval of Azerbaijan as the host country. It has a severely poor human rights record, particularly since it has carried out ethnic cleansing against its Armenian population.

The majority of the focus is, in this context, directed towards its role as an authoritarian petrostate, with oil and gas comprising 90% of exports. The room to lawfully challenge or propose reform on Azerbaijan’s environmental activities is nearly non-existent. Over the past few years, Azerbaijan has increasingly tightened its control over civil society, independent media, and political dissent, repressing civil liberties like freedom of expression and the rights to freedom of association and peaceful assembly.

The country’s regulatory framework regularly hinders the establishment of independent NGOs and media. Politically challenged voices who do act within the law, including environmental advocates, are systematically detained with fabricated charges. This is documented in a recent and extensive joint report by Human Rights Watch and Freedom Now. For example, Anar Mammadli, a well-known human rights activist, was detained this year after starting an organization promoting action on climate justice in Azerbaijan. Those imprisoned risk facing severe ill-treatment and torture which is commonly practiced in the country’s detention facilities. In the lead-up to COP29, Azerbaijan’s President and Foreign Policy Chief both called these critiques a “smear campaign”.

Outcomes: the influence on COP29

Following these concerns in anticipation of the conference – how did it impact the ultimate proceedings?

(1) A lack of local voices: Unexpectedly, few independent Azerbaijani actors were present. Those who were there shared with Amnesty International that they were fearful of meaningful participation. This is particularly relevant considering the country had the highest number of attendants, with 2,229 people registered.

Organizations like Amnesty International directly link the agreement for Azerbaijan to host COP29 with a sharp increase in political prisoners during 2024. There is also a looming threat that Azerbaijan will arrest local stakeholders now that the conference has passed. This has already been observed, with prominent human rights defender Rufat Safarov detained just days after the conference. Therefore, the choice of host country restrained local civil rights and limited meaningful local participation.

(2) Self-censoring of participants: Some external participants expressed that they purposefully avoided public critiques of the host government. Human Rights Watch obtained and shared the host agreement between the UN and Azerbaijan, which was not intended to be public. It revealed “significant gaps regarding protections for participants’ rights”, undermining the importance of free expression at the conference. In a press briefing, the executive director of Climate Action Network stated that civil society was “finding it particularly difficult to get agreements from the UNFCCC secretariat for some of [our] actions in terms of what we can and can’t say, what we can and can’t do, where we can and can’t be”.

(3) Restriction of peaceful protests: Peaceful protests, such as climate marches, are traditionally a key feature of the conference, especially on a traditional ‘Protest day’. While climate marches often run through the host city, protestors during the prior two years could only gather inside the venue, in the UN-governed area known as the “blue zone”. This time, however, activists were even restricted from marching through the zone and could only gather in a large conference room inside the venue. They also hummed and used finger snapping, since chanting was prohibited. Protestors claimed approval for any actions required long negotiations.

(4) Lack of prioritization of rights in agreements: Some of the key contentious points during negotiations were the integration of human rights language (a long-standing issue) and gender considerations. Proposals on these issues were consistently blocked by countries like “Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Vatican”. Negotiators shared with the media that they desired more support from the Presidency, but claimed that Azerbaijan did not consider it a priority. Previous research has shown that the priorities of the host country matter, including setting the agenda.

(5) Misuse of Presidency for commercial opportunities: The BBC reported that the chief executive of COP29 discussed fossil fuel deals with a journalist posing as an investor. Several of the conference’s lead organizers are associated with the state oil company, prompting a strong conflict of interest.

An extensive report by Transparency International also highlighted how the conference may be used for personal enrichment, such as through unregulated corporate sponsorship practices. For example, a no-bid contract, worth over US$5 million, was struck with a billionaire with family ties to the President. The contract dedicates housing at a luxury resort for thousands of conference guests. It can increase costs for accommodation, making access to the conference challenging for civil society, Indigenous communities, and other groups who are more likely to have limited funds.

The nature of these issues means their implications, naturally, are opaque. Hence, further investigative journalism is required to understand how it unfolded during the conference.

A consecutive trend

These issues are not new. When Egypt held the COP Presidency in 2022, authorities arrested hundreds of people suspected of supporting a call for peaceful protests during COP27. During the conference, UN experts accused Egyptian officials of harassing and intimidating both local and non-local civil society actors and human rights defenders.

The following year, COP28 was hosted by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The host country agreement which details the legal framework during the conference was not made public, making participants unsure of how they could express themselves without facing severe legal consequences. The UAE is also another petrostate, with a high level of exploited migrant workers from climate-vulnerable countries, facing unprotected exposure to the UAE’s experience of climate change. Meanwhile, the summit’s president (Sultan Al Jaber) was simultaneously the CEO of the country’s national oil company, and refused to even temporarily abandon that role. Additionally, it was revealed that authorities intended to use the conference to strike fossil fuel deals with foreign officials, similarly to this year’s conference.

The future of COP29 and the call for reform

While this track record may cause confusions, it may be explained by the selection process, which requires full consensus by all parties. Each year the host is selected from a specific region, on a rotational basis. In 2024, it was Eastern Europe’s turn, leading Russia to veto against any state that publicly opposes the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It left only Azerbaijan and Armenia, with the former releasing Armenian prisoners of war in a deal to prevent Armenia from vetoing it as the host.

It ultimately calls into question the current process, with its vulnerabilities to political tensions leaving little room for choice. During the conference, 20 key experts, including a former UN secretary-general and a former UN climate chief, submitted a letter to the UNFCCC calling for reform of COP. Their first point expressed that the conferences “need strict eligibility criteria to exclude countries who do not support the phase out/transition away from fossil energy.” They also commented on the presence of fossil fuel lobbyists, which greatly exceed “official representatives from scientific institutions, Indigenous communities and vulnerable nations”. Another open letter earlier this year by a global coalition of prominent human rights NGOs expressed similar sentiments, calling on host agreements to comply with international human rights law and be made public. While these letters put pressure to reform the process, it is uncertain if change will be made.

Change is, however, highlighted as critical by a range of environmental and human rights advocates. The current process consistently puts local human rights defenders at risk, restricts free expression during the conference, and undermines the integrity of the process. International environmental conferences should not become a vehicle to crack down on local civil liberties, nor should it be run by actors whose interests immediately oppose climate justice.

---

Glossary

• Authoritarian state: a state where political power is concentrated in the hands of a leader or groups of leaders, with limited political freedoms for ordinary citizens

• UN blue zone:  the formal conference and negotiation space managed by UN Climate Change, where only official delegates and observers, Heads of States, and approved press are allowed

• Civil liberties: the right of people to basic freedoms and to live without the government becoming involved in private matters; a lack of which may be referred to as repression

• Civil rights: the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality

• Civil society: organizations and communities that pursue shared social or political goals, excluding government and businesses

• Climate justice: environmental solutions that recognize and address the ways climate change disproportionately affects populations or communities with limited historical responsibility and limited resources to adapt

• Climate marches: a form of protest where groups of people march, calling for action against climate change

• Consensus: complete agreement or approval by everyone

• Contentious: subject to disagreement or controversy

• Conflict of interest: when someone’s private interests or commitments are opposed to their professional responsibilities, leading to unfair decisions or outcomes

• COP: abbreviation of “Conference of the Parties”, which refers to the decision-making body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and is inclusive of all countries who have joined the convention

• COP29: the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference

• COP host country: the country that provides the premises and facilities for the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference

• COP president: the leader of the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, which usually is a senior government official from the host country

• Corporate sponsorship: when a business supports an individual, organization, or event, such as through payments to be associated with them

• Ethnic cleansing: an organized attempt by an ethnic or cultural group to force a different cultural or ethnic population out of an area or country, using violence or intimidation

• Eligibility criteria: official requirements for an individual, group, or organization to carry out or be included in an activity

• Fossil fuel deals: business agreements on non-renewable energy, such as oil, coal, and natural gas

• Fossil fuel lobbyist: people who advocate for the interests of the fossil fuel industry with the intention to influence politicians or lawmakers

• Freedom of association: the right of individuals to interact and organize amongst themselves to collectively express, promote, pursue and defend common interests

• Freedom of expression: the right to express one’s opinions and ideas freely, without control or punishment from the state

• Freedom of peaceful assembly: the right to hold meetings, sit-ins, strikes, rallies, events or protests

• NGO: abbreviation for non-governmental organization which refers to a not-for-profit organization that is not controlled by the government

• No-bid contract: a government or military contract made directly with a corporation or supplier, achieved without standard bidding processes among competitors

• Opaque: unclear or hidden

• Petrostate: a country that heavily relies on exporting oil and/or natural gas, with wealth and power concentrated to a limited elite

• Political dissent: public disagreement with or opposition to the actions, policies, or opinions of a government or political authority

• Political prisoners: someone who is imprisoned for their political beliefs or actions, regardless if this is the officially stated reason for their imprisonment

• The United Nations Climate Change Conference: the annual, official meetings between the countries who have joined United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at negotiating international responses to climate change

• UN secretary-general: the head of the United Nations (formally, the chief administrative officer)

• UNFCCC: abbreviation for The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, referring to a treaty that came into force in 1994, aimed at preventing dangerous climate change caused by human activities

• UNFCCC secretariat: the United Nations entity tasked with supporting the global response to the threat of climate change

• Veto: an official power to reject a decision or action