Nov 25, 2024 07:16 PM IST
The decision on climate finance was supposed to mark a breakthrough, yet it instead underscored the growing chasm between the rhetoric of equity and the reality of exclusion
At the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) which has just concluded in Baku, Azerbaijan, the world witnessed a pivotal moment when the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance was adopted during the closing plenary. The quantified goal for climate finance from developed countries to developing countries was an amount of $300 billion per year by 2035, packaged as tripling climate finance. The president of the conference swiftly gavelled the decision under Agenda Item 11a. What followed, was a fiery rebuke from India and other developing countries. This decision was supposed to mark a breakthrough, yet it instead underscored the growing chasm between the rhetoric of equity and the reality of exclusion.
India, the first to take the floor to oppose the adoption, did not mince words. It vociferously opposed the decision, citing a lack of collaboration and raising the critical issue of trust — a fragile pillar on which COP processes rest. By adopting a decision without the meaningful participation of all stakeholders, particularly developing countries, the process betrayed the very spirit of multilateralism. For India, the lack of transparency was not just a procedural lapse but a fundamental breach of faith.
The sentiments expressed by India resonated across the Global South. Bolivia, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, Nigeria, and Malawi who spoke for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), echoed this discontent. The crux of their unhappiness? The $300 billion annual mobilisation target by 2035 — a figure that falls woefully short of the actual needs.
The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) of the UNFCCC had already provided a stark assessment. According to its Second Needs Determination Report, developing countries’ financial needs for climate action by 2030 range between $5.036 and $6.876 trillion — and this represents only 48% of costed needs. A simple extrapolation reveals that the full financial requirement could be as high as $10.49 to $14.33 trillion, or an annualised cost of $1.75 to $2.39 trillion by 2030. The $300-billion target adopted at COP29, therefore, not only misses the mark but also risks undermining the very goals it aims to achieve.
Worse still, the $300-billion target is a mobilisation goal, meaning it relies heavily on private sector contributions and lacks guarantees for grant-based finance, particularly for adaptation. This is a bitter pill for developing countries, which have long emphasised the need for predictable and accessible funding. The decision’s failure to explicitly address grant-based support for adaptation is not just an oversight but an injustice to the communities most vulnerable to climate impacts.
The decision compounds its shortcomings by misrepresenting the SCF’s findings. It references the costed needs identified in the report but fails to acknowledge that these account for less than half of the total needs. This selective framing distorts the true scale of the challenge and conveniently sidesteps the pressing demand for a more ambitious financial framework. By not contextualising the report accurately, the decision does a disservice to the very countries it purports to support.
The European Union attempted to justify the modest target by invoking the challenging geopolitical context. It also argued for contributions from developing parties, implicitly challenging the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. For developing countries, this narrative is not only unconvincing but also undermines the equity embedded in the Paris Agreement and the mother Convention. The onus to provide climate finance lies squarely with developed countries, whose historical emissions have disproportionately fuelled the climate crisis.
India rightly pointed out that the adopted target erodes trust in COP processes. Trust, after all, is not built by imposing top-down decisions but through genuine collaboration. Without trust, the Paris Agreement risks becoming another hollow promise.
If COP processes are to retain their legitimacy, they must address the glaring disconnect between the needs of developing countries and the commitments of developed ones. First, the NCQG must be revised to reflect the full financial needs, including the uncosted portion identified in the SCF report. Second, developed countries must commit to significantly scaling up grant-based public finance, particularly for adaptation, to restore trust and credibility. Third, the process of decision-making must become more inclusive and transparent, ensuring that no country feels sidelined.
Climate finance is not just a matter of numbers; it is a matter of justice. The Global South has contributed the least to the climate crisis but bears the brunt of its impacts. For COP to succeed, it must put equity at the heart of its agenda. Anything less is a betrayal of the promise of climate action.
The voices of India and other developing countries at COP29 were a wake-up call. Will the world listen, or will it continue to gamble with our collective future?
Shailly Kedia is senior fellow, TERI. The views expressed are personal
Get Current Updates on…
See more
