Dec 05, 2024 08:36 PM IST
The $300 billion commitment is the final nail in the coffin of the 1.5°C target, hammered irresponsibly by the rich developed world nations.
The 29th Conference of Parties (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, was to deliver a new climate finance agreement that matched the scale of our global challenge. Instead, the deal we got is little more than an exercise in political theatre.
Some key aspects of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) gleaned from United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decision texts are listed here. The developing world has been pushing for: (i) Support to national climate plans; (ii) a time-bound decision (by 2024); (iii) consideration for the needs and development priorities of developing economies; and (iv) meaningful finance delivery through timely access, quality and transparency of funding. The developed world has emphasised enhanced climate ambition and a wide variety of sources. The four key asks of the developing world at COP29 flowed from these aspects. They were collectively driven by the need to support development priorities and national climate plans which would be impossible to achieve simultaneously in the absence of meaningful climate finance flowing in a time-bound manner from the developed world.
The first ask was to make financial contributions mandatory. The Paris Agreement’s Article 9.1 says developed countries “shall” provide financial resources to help the developing world adapt to and mitigate climate impacts. Developing nations pushed for a binding commitment that would hold the Global North accountable. Instead, what they got was a fallback to Article 9.3 that merely says the developed countries “should” take the lead in mobilising finance, without any mandatory obligation. The refusal to make climate finance a mandatory obligation reveals the Global North’s lack of political will to take responsibility for its historical emissions.
The second ask was for clarity that climate finance should explicitly flow from developed to developing nations even if it being mandatory was not agreed upon. Developing countries wanted a clear commitment that funds would come directly from those most responsible for the climate crisis to those most affected by it so that the developed world is held accountable, if not legally bound. This would have ensured finance obligations were clearly tracked. However, the final text of the NCQG only includes the phrase “for developing country Parties”, without explicitly stating “from developed country Parties”. This allows developed nations to shirk responsibility, emphasising only a vague leadership role in mobilising finance rather than delivering on measurable accountability.
The third expectation was a target of $1.3 trillion from the developed to the developing world annually by 2030. Instead, what was agreed to finally was $300 billion annually by 2035. While $1.3 trillion makes for meaningful finance, the final text makes it meaningless, by including all sources, even private sector funding from within the developing world. This was rightly termed an “optical illusion” by India.
The final demand was for a significant grant-based component to climate finance, rather than loans that increased indebtedness. But, there is only a cursory mention of grants and concessional finance in the final NCQG text. This lack of commitment means that the poorest countries will keep bearing the cost of adapting to a crisis they did not cause.
Had the NCQG decision followed the word and spirit of historical and common but differentiated responsibility, the developed world would have agreed to an explicit grant-based provision flowing from the developed world to the developing world. On exact quantitative commitments, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only $25.6 billion in 2022 came as climate-related grants to the developing world. Official development assistance grants from the developed world, across sectors and countries, were less than $240 billion in 2022. Given this context, the developing world’s ask of $441-900 billion in annual grants by 2035 specific to climate finance appears to have been more of a bargaining chip in negotiations.
What could have been achievable and ambitious had the developed world made an honest effort? Probably $500 billion annually by 2035, with $100 billion purely in grants would have been a just outcome, even though insufficient to keep to the 1.5°C pathway. This could have been increased in the next iteration. It is going to be hard to push ambition on climate action now in the developing world. The $300 billion commitment is the final nail in the coffin of the 1.5°C target, hammered irresponsibly by the rich developed world nations.
Vaibhav Chaturvedi is a senior fellow andSumit Prasad is programme lead at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW).The views expressed are personal.
Get Current Updates on…
See more
