It was India’s day at COP29 in Baku on Sunday, when it led the cause of the Global South and ridiculed the “meagre” $300 billion the developed countries set aside as the climate finance package.
The Baku round in Azerbaijan came up with $300 billion climate finance package for the Global South. The COP29 presidency and the UN climate change office forced through the deal before allowing it to voice its objections.
The figure is a far away from the $ 1.3 trillion the Global South has been demanding over the past three years of talks to tackle climate change.
India, strongly articulating the Global South stand, said developed countries, historically responsible for much of greenhouse gas emissions forcing climate change, are required to provide finance, technology, and capacity-building support to developing and low-income economies to help them cope with a warming world.
Therefore, India called the annual figure of $300 billion an “optical illusion“, which will not address the real climate challenges and reflects the unwillingness of the developed country bloc to fulfil their responsibilities.
India’s firm stand garnered support from Africa and South America, which represent the Global South. Nigeria, Malavi and Bolivia objected to the paltry amount, with Nigeria saying the $ 300 billion climate finance package was a “joke”.
The $1.3 trillion figure is in the Baku document, but it calls on “all actors”, including public and private, to “work together” to reach this level by 2035. Cleverly, the document does not place the responsibility solely on developed countries.
In 2009, $100 billion per year was pledged by 2020. However, this pledge was only met in 2020, with around 70 per cent of the funds coming in the form of loans.
India’s stand is the $300 billion does not meet the needs and priorities of developing countries and is incompatible with the principle of CBDR (Common but Differentiated Responsibilities) and equity, regardless of the battle with the impact of climate change.
Making a strong statement on behalf of India at the closing plenary of the UN climate conference here, Chandni Raina, Adviser, Department of Economic Affairs, termed the adoption process “unfair” and “stage-managed” and said it reflected the troubling lack of trust in the UN system.
“We had informed the presidency and the secretariat that we wanted to make a statement before any decision on the adoption. However, and this is for everyone to see, this has been stage-managed, and we are extremely disappointed with this incident,” Raina said.
“We have seen what you have done. However, we would want to say that gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) system, and we would want you to hear us and also hear our objections to this adoption. We absolutely object to this,” she said drawing applause at the plenary.
As per the final official draft by UNFCC, the central focus of COP 29 was on bringing together nearly 200 countries in Baku and reaching a breakthrough agreement that will triple the public finance to developing countries from the previous goal of $100 billion annually to $300 billion annually by 2035.
India raised the concerns of the developing countries and rejected the deal, saying it did not reflect the priorities of the developing nations.
Indian representative Chandani Raina said: “I regret to say that this document is nothing more than an optical illusion. This, in our opinion, will not address the enormity of the challenge we all face. Therefore, we oppose the adoption of this document.”.
The United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his closing statement said, “I had hoped for a more ambitious outcome – on both finance and mitigation – to meet the great challenge we face. But this agreement provides a base on which to build. It must be honoured in full and on time. Commitments must quickly become cash.”
Speaking on the COP outcomes, Aarti Khosla, Director of Climate Trends said, “The decision to have a new climate finance goal that replaces the 100 billion dollars per year has been marred with the difficulties of squeezing any money out of the developed world, which is under obligation to provide resources. The $300 billion from all sources by 2035 remains uncertain and unclear but the best possible in times of geopolitical tensions existing across the world. The final agreement was objected to by India. It has been inadequate in the amount of funding and a tough pill to swallow. However, finer elements like setting aside funds for least-developed countries are slight progress. Climate is a matter of life and death for some countries.”
Delivering India’s statement, Secretary (MoEFCC) and Dy. Leader of the Delegation, Leena Nandan said, “We feel disappointed by the fact that we continue to shift focus when the time has come to ensure that the mitigation actions are fully supported through provisions of adequate Finances as per CBDR-RC and equity considerations. CoP after CoP, we keep talking about mitigation ambitions – what is to be done, without talking about how it is to be done – in other words, the enablement of mitigation ambitions. This CoP started with Focus on enablement through New Collective Quantitative Goals (NCQG), but as we move towards the end, we see shifting of the focus to mitigation.”
India asserted that any attempts to deflect the focus again from climate finance to repeated emphasis on mitigation cannot be accepted.
The statement read, “All countries have submitted their NDCs and will be submitting the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) being informed by the various decisions we have taken together in the past as well as on the basis of our national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development goals and poverty eradication. What we decide here on climate finance will certainly influence what we submit next year. The attempt by some parties to further talk about mitigation is primarily a shift in focus from their own responsibilities of providing finance.”
The statement called for a ‘Balance in the Climate Discourse’, and added, “If not so ensured, we may have continuous talk of mitigation that has no meaning, unless supported by enablement that is needed to make climate actions happen on the ground.”
India also highlighted that as grant-based concessional Climate Finance is the most critical enabler to formulate and implement the new NDCs, action will get severely impacted in the absence of adequate means of implementation.
The statement read, “The document needs to be specific on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access, transparency, and review. The goal for mobilisation needs to be USD 1.3 trillion, with USD 600 billion of this coming through grants and grants equivalent resources. Expansion of the contributor base, reflection of conditional elements such as macroeconomic and fiscal measures, suggestion for carbon pricing, focus on private sector actors for scaling up resource flows as investments – is contrary to the mandate for the goal. NCQG is not an investment goal. We must accept that climate actions by Developing countries will have to be country driven, in line with their circumstances and in the manner best suited to country priorities.”
India strongly declined to accept any renegotiation of the shared understanding prevalent on ‘Just Transitions’ in the decision from Dubai.
The statement read, “Just transition is interpreted in narrow domestic terms, implying that it is national governments that have to take actions to ensure domestic just transitions. However, we have repeatedly made the point that Just transitions begin globally with Developed countries taking the lead in mitigation and ensuring that they provide the means of implementation to all Developing countries.”
The next climate change meeting is scheduled to be held in Amazon Gateway Belem, Brazil.
