New Climate Financing Targets Present Opportunity for the Gulf

Following two weeks of COP29 negotiations, exhibitions, and panel events, delegates representing governments around the world reached a major consensus. Most significantly, they agreed wording on a new climate financing target for developing countries, international carbon market standards, and a support programme for national adaptation plans (NAPs) for the least developed countries.

These three key victories for the climate agenda present great opportunities for the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—collectively referred to as the Gulf 3—to play a leading and supportive role in investing in a 1.5C-aligned and resilient future, which was the fundamental aim of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

At the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit (COP15), developed countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion of annual climate financing for developing countries by 2020. This target was unfortunately never met, with the deadline extended to 2025 during the Paris Agreement signifying a commitment to updating the target to increase its ambition by the end of the decade. This brings the focus to 2024’s negotiations, which culminated in this target being updated to $300 billion annually by 2035.

This target and metric are highly contested. Developing countries want to increase the target further as their financing needs are much greater than this amount. The Overseas Development Institute has estimated that the need is closer to $1.3 trillion per year by 2035, which is the new cumulative goal. Moreover, much of this financing is currently provided in the form of debt rather than grants, adding to existing debt obligations, which is especially challenging for small and developing nations.

The new agreement requires the 24 developed nations, across Europe, the United States, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, to deliver on this target. A broader climate financing target of $1.3 trillion has also been set by 2035, and “voluntary” contributions from countries outside the original 24 are allowed to be included in this figure.

Fossil-fuel-dependent states, including the Gulf 3, have faced criticism for their role and influence over the talks, but the opportunity remains for them to contribute further, as part of this new metric for South-South financing.

Documenting and disclosing existing investment flows can build transparency and show the world that the Gulf 3 are serious about contributing to global climate finance flows. Once this reporting infrastructure is in place, the next opportunity for the Gulf 3 would be to demonstrate their leadership and commitment to South-South climate financing by increasing financial flows from the baseline to help meet the $1.3 trillion annual funding target by 2035.  Alongside the likes of China and Korea, this effort will help to further increase South-South climate financing.

According to the World Investment Report released earlier in 2024 by the UN Conference on Trade and Development, foreign direct investment outflows from the Gulf 3 totalled some $38.2 billion in 2023, down from its peak  of $58.2 billion in 2022. While a more detailed breakdown of the share of these investments that can be considered climate financing and the proportion  allocated to other developing countries is not available, this demonstrates the scale of capital available from the Gulf 3 for this opportunity.

A significant chunk of this financing came from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, known as the Public Investment Fund (PIF), with some $620 billion in assets under management. Of the thirteen “vital and strategic" investment sectors PIF has identified for the upcoming five years, seven are crucial to climate financing going forward: food and agriculture, metals and mining, transport and logistics, automotives, real estate, construction and building, utilities and renewables.

A similar sector focus can be seen in the investment portfolios of the UAE and Qatar. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), Mubadala Investment Company (MIC), Emirates Investment Company (EIC), and Qatar Investment Authority (QIC), which boast a combined portfolio of $1.8 trillion, are responsible for driving investments that can help to fill this global green financing gap. In particular, the Abu Dhabi Fund for Development has a designated mandate for concessional and sustainable financing to local and global emerging economies.

COP29 also led to defined rules for both Article 6.2 and 6.4 in relation to carbon markets. The International Emissions Trading Association estimates this can raise $1 trillion of additional financing for developing countries by 2050, by channelling funding into nature-positive projects, particularly in developing nations. Article 6.2 defines the framework for countries to make bilateral agreements to exchange and trade carbon credits. Article 6.4 creates a centralised international carbon market, supervised by the UN who then validates, issues, and verifies carbon credits.

The defining of Article 6.2 and 6.4 market mechanisms means that legal and regulatory frameworks now exist for the Gulf 3 to partner bilaterally and multilaterally with countries around the world to improve the supply and demand for these carbon credits, working towards a high-quality and high-price carbon credit market.

In Baku last month, Saudi Arabia’s PIF launched a carbon credit exchange called the “Regional Voluntary Carbon Market Company,” with the auctioning of 1 million tons of carbon offset credits. Last year, the UAE Carbon Alliance announced targets to buy USD450m of Africa’s carbon market initiative, with the UAE additionally considering developing its own Emission Trading System. At the same time, Qatari firm Emsurge has announced a public-private partnership to fuel its own carbon market development.

The outcomes of COP29 present a critical opportunity for the Gulf 3 to align their financial resources with global climate goals. By scaling investments through sovereign wealth funds like PIF, ADIA, and QIC, these nations can help close the global climate financing gap and drive South-South cooperation. Transparent documentation and a commitment to increasing flows will showcase their leadership in building a resilient, 1.5C-aligned future.

Photo: WAM

Climate Policy and Cross-Border Hydrocarbon Development in the Gulf

This article is part of a series exploring regional energy cooperation in the Gulf and is published in cooperation with Istituto Affari Internazionali.

The Gulf countries are leading global producers and exporters of oil and gas. They have long reserves lives at current production levels, well beyond 2050, and substantial potential to increase reserves through field development, enhanced recovery, and exploration. They are intrinsically low-carbon producers measured by upstream emissions per barrel, although this is obscured in Iran and Iraq by high levels of flaring of unused associated gas (a by-product of oil production) and leakage of methane. They have strong involvement of state oil companies in oil and gas production, though this varies from an effective monopoly (Kuwait) to a leading role for international operators (Iraq and Oman).

With the exception of Iraq, they have large domestic petrochemical industries. Saudi Arabia and, increasingly, the UAE, have extensive international investments in refining and petrochemicals across the US, Europe, and Asia. While this is mainly on their own account, Kuwait does have a stake in the important new Duqm refinery in Oman. The region’s oil exporters also make use of the extensive oil storage and bunkering facilities in the UAE and Oman. On the other hand, Qatar is the world’s biggest LNG exporter and has a major expansion programme to be completed during 2026-27, Oman and the UAE are smaller LNG exporters (the UAE also expanding), while Iran is an important supplier of gas by pipeline to Turkey and Iraq.

The role of the Gulf states as oil exporters has limited the potential for cooperation between them. The dominance of the state in the upstream industry means that cross-border hydrocarbon investment is very limited. Mubadala Energy, the energy arm of the Abu Dhabi government strategic development company, has some upstream assets in Qatar and Oman, and utility Taqa has oil operations in the Kurdistan region of Iraq. QatarEnergy recently entered a project in southern Iraq led by TotalEnergies for development of oil, gas, water injection and solar power. Sanctions and political disputes have prevented any GCC investment in Iran’s hydrocarbon sector. There has been some interest, for example, and various plans since the early 2000s for gas and electricity connections, and most recently, discussions between Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran in July 2023 concerning investment and the development of shared fields.

Gas is more promising for cooperation, given that some of the Gulf states are relatively gas-short. The most notable project, Dolphin, exports gas from Qatar by pipeline to the UAE, with small volumes continuing to Oman. Dolphin faced opposition from Saudi Arabia, which argued that the pipeline crossed its own maritime territory. A similar plan to supply Qatari gas to Kuwait was entirely blocked by Saudi Arabia, which did not want the smaller GCC states to be linked beyond its influence. Although LNG exports from Qatar to the UAE stopped during the boycott of Doha between June 2017-January 2021, Dolphin continued operating as normal, a sign of its importance to both countries, and of the promise of energy projects to constrain conflict.

Some oil and gas fields in the Gulf lie across borders. In general, countries have developed them competitively, extracting as much as possible without an agreement with the neighbouring state. The most notable field affected by a boundary dispute is the large gas-field Dorra, known in Iran as Arash, which lies partly in Kuwaiti waters, partly in the Kuwaiti section of the Partitioned Neutral Zone with Saudi Arabia, and partly, in Tehran’s view, in Iranian waters. Kuwait’s shortage of gas leads to heavy domestic use of polluting and expensive oil. An agreement on Dorra, perhaps via a joint development zone without concession of sovereignty, could be a way forward. Such agreements have enabled Saudi Arabia to supply half of the oil from the Abu Safa field to Bahrain as part of a boundary settlement and Qatar and the UAE to divide the resources of the offshore Bunduq oil-field.

The most important cross-boundary field, not just in the Gulf but in the world, is called the North Field in Qatar and South Pars in Iran. It is world’s biggest gas field. The field, which also contains shallower cross-boundary oil resources, has been developed by each side without formal agreement, but there are tacit understandings to avoid one side moving too far ahead of the other on extraction levels. Qatar imposed a moratorium on further development of the North Field in 2005, and lifted it in 2017. Ostensibly this was for technical reasons, more plausibly for gas market management purposes, but it also gave Iran time to catch up to and even exceed relative Qatari production levels. As Iran’s own output from South Pars increased, so eventually Qatar was able to decide to raise production further, without risking tensions with Iran over unfair levels of extraction.

More intra-regional gas trade would enable reducing the use of oil in the power sector. Qatar, Iran (if its gas resources were properly developed), and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, would be natural gas suppliers by pipeline to neighbours. This would require more regional trust, and transparency to put gas supplies on a reliable commercial basis. Cross-border investment in gas-using sectors such as petrochemicals, multi-country gas networks, and robust arbitration procedures, could create structures that would be more resistant to politically- or commercially-motivated cut-offs. Iran is, for example, a 10 percent shareholder in Azerbaijan’s important Shah Deniz gas field and in the South Caucasus Gas Pipeline from Azerbaijan to Turkey via Georgia, along with BP, Russia’s Lukoil and Turkish and Azeri state entities. But the recent history of Russian gas supplies to Europe, and the interruption of federal Iraqi and Kurdistan region oil exports through Turkey, reveals how even long-standing pipeline deals with strong mutual profitability can be derailed.

As COP28 in Dubai signalled, climate policy will exert ever-greater influence on the oil and gas industry: first through requirements to zero-out its own emissions, second through a longer-term reduction in demand, at least for oil. The Gulf countries present a wide spread of economic and environmental vulnerability, and sophistication of climate policy ranges from the very limited (Iraq) to the relatively advanced (UAE). The Oil and Gas Decarbonisation Charter (OGDC) concluded at COP28 was signed by the national oil companies of Abu Dhabi, Sharjah, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia, among others, but not by Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, or Qatar.

With the exception of Qatar, all of the Gulf countries are members either of OPEC or the OPEC+ alliance. OPEC and the OGDC, as well as other structures such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, offer potential to foster cooperation on decarbonisation paths within the petroleum industry, which include ending flaring and methane leakage, improving energy efficiency, electrifying operations, and incorporating renewable and nuclear power, implementing carbon capture and storage, piloting carbon dioxide removal technologies, producing sustainable aviation and maritime fuels, and developing hydrogen and its derivatives.

Specific cooperation would include aligning standards and regulations; sharing technological learnings and best practices; conducting joint studies on regional carbon dioxide storage capacity or satellite monitoring of methane leakage; and possibly some shared infrastructure, though this is more challenging and probably not essential. Joint investments, either within the Gulf countries or in third countries, could include the production of low-carbon hydrogen and sustainable fuels.

This collaboration can also include policy-related and diplomatic endeavours, on areas such as carbon caps, prices or taxes, international carbon trading under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6.4, dealing with the growing use of carbon border tariffs, and appropriate certification and regulation for low-carbon hydrogen.

The global energy market has been evolving rapidly, notably with the rise of Asia as the world’s key importer and consumer of energy and emitter of greenhouse gases, and the evolution of the natural gas business into a truly internationalised market via LNG trade. Most recently, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the elimination of most of its pipeline gas exports to the EU, and a near-total ban on imports of Russian oil by the EU and other Western countries, have reshaped the global energy market and the patterns of trade in Gulf energy. The increasing US-China tensions, and the moves towards more diversity and robustness in supply chains and greater domestic self-sufficiency in key energy-related materials and technologies, is another emerging and evolving theme.

Greater Gulf cooperation on hydrocarbons, as a part of balanced strategies incorporating climate protection, could manage some of these threats and promote longer-term cooperation solutions to problems facing the region’s critical economic sector.

Photo: Aramco

How the UAE will Underwrite the Iran Deal's Success

As negotiations on the restoration of the Iran nuclear deal reach their “final stage,” doubts persist about whether the lifting of US secondary sanctions will really boost Iran’s economy. Iranian leaders are seeking “guarantees” that they will accrue the economic benefits promised under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), citing both the disappointing experience of sanctions relief between 2016-2018 and the pall that has been cast by President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the agreement.

Doubts around the JCPOA’s economic prospects revolve around whether European companies will bother to engage the Iranian market given the challenging experience of the last few years. But there is another trade relationship that arguably matters more for the future of the JCPOA.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) did not play a significant role in Iran’s economic recovery during the period of sanctions relief between 2016-2018. This is notable because in the period leading up to the imposition of financial sanctions on Iran in 2012, the UAE was catching up to the European Union as one of Iran’s top trade partners. In the ten years from 2001 to 2011, UAE trade with Iran rose at twice the pace of European trade, rising from $2.2 billion to $24.2 billion. In the same period, EU trade with Iran rose from $12.8 billion to $36.8 billion.

According to data published by IRICA, Iran’s customs authority, UAE trade with Iran peaked in 2011 at $24 billion. That same year, data from Eurostat shows that EU trade with Iran also reached an all-time high at $36 billion. To put it another way, the volume of Iranian trade passing through the UAE was equivalent to two-thirds of Iran’s direct trade with the whole of Europe. During the first decade of the millennium, Iran underwent significant industrial development enabled by the forces of globalisation. Iran lacked a global port and global banks. But its proximity to the UAE offered a conduit to global markets. Dubai was to Iran what Hong Kong was to China in the 1990s—the world’s gateway to a fast-growing economy.

After the imposition of financial sanctions in 2012, both EU and UAE trade with Iran took a hit as the Iranian economy was thrust into a recession. EU trade with Iran averaged just $10.6 billion per year between 2012 and 2015. UAE trade fell less dramatically, given that a large portion of Iranian exports to the UAE, destined for third countries, is comprised of food and consumer goods that fall outside of the scope of sectoral sanctions. The value of UAE trade with Iran averaged $15.3 billion in this period.

In January 2016, the implementation of the JCPOA saw the lifting of a wide range of UN, US, and EU sanctions on Iran. EU trade with Iran rebounded sharply as Iranian exports to Europe rose, driven by oil sales. Iran used its euro-denominated revenues to purchase European goods, especially industrial goods. EU trade with Iran rose to $23 billion in 2017, still down compared to the 2011 peak, but a marked improvement over the period prior to the implementation of the JCPOA. By contrast, trade with the UAE did not rebound. Total trade between the UAE and Iran averaged $14.4 billion from 2016 to 2018—slightly lower than the trade volumes in the period before sanctions relief.

This is the overlooked aspect of why Iran’s experience of JCPOA sanctions relief was underwhelming. While trade with Europe failed to return to its pre-sanctions peak, the greater constraint on Iran’s economic recovery was that trade facilitated through the UAE did not really rebound at all. Consequently, Iran’s ability to engage with all of its trading partners remained diminished. Iranian and foreign companies seeking to do business in the aftermath of sanctions relief could not avail themselves of the most obvious and efficient financial and logistical channels to do so. 

For the last decade, UAE relations with Iran have been strained. The UAE was quick to support the multilateral sanctions on Iran, with Abu Dhabi reigning in Dubai-based banks and companies that had long profited from their links to Iran. Under instruction from the UAE central bank, commercial banks closed the accounts of Iranian companies and Iranian nationals. Multinational companies that had used their UAE-based subsidiaries to conduct business with Iran shifted their operations (Turkish banks emerged as an alternative financial channel for trade with Iran, especially for the European trade that persisted in the sanctions period). The UAE gave tepid support to the Obama administration’s efforts to constrain Iran’s nuclear programme but felt excluded from discussions around the possible impact of the deal, which seemed poised to tip the regional balance of power in Iran’s favour. On January 2, 2016, a crowd attacked the Saudi embassy in Tehran. Two days later, and just ten days before the JCPOA was formally implemented, the UAE downgraded its diplomatic ties with Iran. Over the next year, Mohammed bin Zayed, crown prince of Abu Dhabi, joined with Mohammed bin Salman, crown prince of Saudi Arabia, to push back on Iranian influence in the region. By the end of 2018, following a unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, the Trump administration had reimposed secondary sanctions on Iran in full, with the full support of UAE leaders.

In May 2019, the same month that Trump revoked a set of waivers permitting Iran to sell limited volumes of oil to its historic customers, four tankers were damaged in an attack off the coast of Fujairah. The attack, attributed to Iran, was the first incident in a series of escalations that constituted Iran’s response to the Trump administration’s maximum pressure sanctions. Just a few months later, the UAE dispatched a delegation to Iran to discuss maritime security. Leaders in Iran and the UAE eventually came to realise that renewed dialogue could help avoid a spiralling regional security crisis. In December of last year, Tahnoon bin Zayed, brother to Abu Dhabi’s crown prince and the UAE’s national security advisor, visited Tehran. The maturation of this diplomacy has been supported by economic engagement. Over the course of the last two years, the UAE has taken steps to reprise its role as a facilitator of Iran’s trade links, emerging as a key intermediary in Iran’s oil exports to China, despite these exports taking place in violation of US secondary sanctions.

Back in 2019, as the first signs of renewed economic diplomacy emerged, I argued that “Abu Dhabi can’t afford to keep Iran out of Dubai.” The argument still holds true. Dubai and the wider UAE have performed an economic miracle, emerging from the desert as a global center of trade and finance. But as a new analysis from the IMF makes clear, further growth and greater resilience will require regional economic integration. While the IMF report limits its discussion to GCC countries, a restoration of UAE-Iran trade to pre-sanctions levels would be an enormous catalyst for growth. UAE leaders are aware of this fact. In a statement jointly issued with the United States, GCC leaders declared that “deeper economic ties after the lifting of US sanctions under the JCPOA are in the mutual interest of the region.”

When it comes to the prospects for renewed sanctions relief, the increasingly constructive relations between the UAE and Iran must be taken into account. If the UAE plays an active role in facilitating increased trade with Iran following the restoration of the JCPOA, the rise in trade could compensate for any diminished rebound in trade between Europe and Iran. More optimistically, if UAE banks are instructed to resume support for Iran-related transactions, the increase in available foreign exchange liquidity and the multiplication of the available payment channels could have a dramatic impact on the full range of Iran’s bilateral trade relations. Where European and Asian banks may remain hesitant to facilitate trade, UAE banks can step in as intermediaries, taking on the burden of the compliance requirements. They will have enough business to justify the costs of working with Iran.

While the normalisation of UAE-Iran ties remains tentative, UAE leaders aware of the role they can play as underwriters of the restored nuclear deal. The Biden administration, eager to consolidate the restored JCPOA, will likely encourage the UAE to reprise its role as Iran’s primary gateway to the global economy, with the U.S. Department of Treasury and U.S. Department of State engaging directly with UAE regulators and companies to help them navigate the new compliance landscape. The potential is enormous. UAE-Iran trade grew at an annualised rate of 28 percent between 2001 and 2011. Had this growth been sustained for just five more years, total trade would have exceeded $80 billion. What matters most for the long-term viability of the nuclear deal is not whether trade with Europe will return to pre-sanctions levels, but whether revitalised trade with the UAE can accelerate Iran’s reintegration into the global economy.

Photo: WAM