During a fiercely debated session at the United Nations, India delivered a compelling address highlighting the shortcomings of affluent nations in fulfilling their obligations to assist developing countries in the Global South, particularly after a new climate finance target was sanctioned.
As the COP29 climate summit concluded in the early hours of Sunday, India’s vehement opposition to the approved climate finance deal underscored its determination to be the leading advocate for the Global South. This response was indicative of a broader call for increased international support necessary to ramp up climate initiatives, according to diplomats and policy analysts present at the event.
India’s rejection of the hastily agreed-upon climate finance goal for 2026-2035 was characterized as “bold” and “historic.” Officials pointed out that proper procedural protocols were overlooked during the decision-making process, and India insisted on “much higher ambition” from developed countries in their climate commitments.
Chandni Raina, an advisor with India’s Department of Economic Affairs, articulated in a passionate address that “The Global South is being pushed to transit to no-carbon pathways even at the cost of our growth.” She lamented that the sum allocated was inadequate, emphasizing that “This amount is a paltry sum and not something that will enable conducive climate action” after the financial arrangement was hastily adopted.
In a significant turn of events, rich nations collectively agreed to allocate a minimum of $300 billion annually by 2035 to assist developing countries in enhancing their climate action efforts. This agreement came on the heels of tense discussions where vulnerable nations sought a more substantial allocation to address their pressing needs.
Fractious COP29 lands $300bn climate finance goal, dashing hopes of the poorest.
The newly established goal replaces the previous target of $100 billion per year, a figure that was only achieved two years late in 2022 and is increasingly viewed as grossly insufficient to meet the escalating requirements of poorer nations striving to transition to sustainable energy sources while adapting to the threats posed by climate change.
During COP29 negotiations in Baku, developing nations advocated for the climate finance amount to be escalated to at least $1 trillion annually, with the majority of the funds being solely in the form of grants rather than loans.
The significantly lower ultimate commitment of $300 billion, primarily to be fulfilled by affluent governments, is aligned with a broader consensus at COP29 to progressively increase climate financing to a minimum of $1.3 trillion each year by 2035 from diverse public and private sources.
Expressing her disillusionment with the outcome, Raina stated at the final plenary, “We are disappointed in the outcome which clearly brings out the unwillingness of the developed country parties to fulfill their responsibilities. We cannot accept it,” garnering enthusiastic applause from the audience. Delegates from several nations, including Cuba, Nigeria, Malawi, and Bolivia, echoed similar sentiments of disappointment and frustration following the decision.
Champion for the Global South
Hana Hamadalla from Sudan articulated the significance of India’s assertive stance: “It is important when India speaks up. It reflects our views – those of the least developed countries.” She was part of a delegation of least-developed nations that protested an earlier version of the agreement by walking out of discussions.
Raina’s insistence on the inadequacy of the $300 billion figure resonated deeply, reflecting the sentiments of representatives from many vulnerable nations.
According to Sandeep Pai, director for research and strategy at Swaniti Global, a social enterprise focusing on climate initiatives, “India has been and wants to continue to be a champion for other Global South developing countries.”
In discussions, initial proposals from wealthy nations suggested a financial commitment of $250 billion annually by 2035, which was promptly dismissed by climate activists and poorer nations. They then adjusted their offer to the current $300 billion figure. A notable group of economists has advocated that this financial goal should be pursued five years earlier and subsequently elevated to $390 billion annually by 2035.
As climate-vulnerable countries, we know what kind of finance we need.
India had previously called on affluent nations to pledge $600 billion annually in the form of grants. The concluded agreement reached in Baku, which was only half of that request, failed to clarify how much of the agreed public finance would be allocated specifically as grants and low-interest loans.
Pai characterized the COP29 financial arrangement as “grim,” underscoring the widely held perception that actual funding would only materialize if it presented commercially viable opportunities.
Concerns were also raised regarding the potential decrease in funding due to the political shifts in influential nations. Pai highlighted that the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president could further diminish financial commitments, especially if he pursues withdrawal from the Paris climate accords.
Such a scenario could create a significant gap in climate financing that European countries, Japan, and other wealthy nations may be reluctant to bridge, consequently intensifying pressure on larger developing countries that contribute significantly to emissions.
Voluntary contributions
Throughout COP29, industrialized nations fiercely advocated for an expanded donor base for climate finance, suggesting that wealthier developing countries like China and oil-rich nations in the Gulf should also contribute. However, this proposal met with staunch opposition from India, which refuses to be classified as a developed nation.
Indian negotiators emphasized their long-standing position to resist being regarded as a developed nation, which would impose expectations for financial contributions.
While no formal request was made for India to join the contributor pool for this new goal, New Delhi has firmly opposed any changes in the negotiating framework that would alter the distribution of responsibilities among countries regarding climate action.
The finalized agreement merely offers encouragement for developing countries to make voluntary contributions towards the new financial objective, lacking any binding commitments.
In a statement shortly after COP29 reached an agreement, Jennifer Morgan, Germany’s special envoy for climate, emphasized on X that developed nations are prepared to increase their contributions, especially challenging countries that have seen significant growth in emissions since 1992 to match their commitments. “The target we have put forward demonstrates our seriousness,” she asserted.
Amidst ongoing discussions on climate finance, India stands out as a major player amidst the world’s leading emitters, including China, the United States, and the EU, despite its ranking as one of the lowest in per-capita emissions, according to an analysis from the World Resources Institute.
Raina reiterated that India’s stance remains firm against recognizing developing nations as sources of climate finance, stressing that this perspective must shift in negotiations moving forward.
Less finance, weaker NDCs
In the negotiating halls of Baku, India spearheaded the dialogue concerning the National Climate Quality Goals (NCQG) from the perspective of the Global South. Its resistance to the consensus reached at COP29 may foreshadow the potential submission of weaker Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by developing countries in the upcoming year, according to analysts.
According to Sanjay Vashist, director of Climate Action Network South Asia, while countries like India are unlikely to moderate their adaptation strategies, the lack of adequate financing will not be reflected in the NDCs submitted for international review.
“We are answerable to domestic monitoring systems not international. Now you are not under obligation,” he emphasized, drawing attention to the challenges posed by financing shortfalls.
India’s assertive objections at COP29 serve a dual purpose, signaling that without amplification of voices from all countries, substantial agreements will remain elusive. This sentiment was echoed by Srestha Banerjee, director of just transition at the International Forum for Environment, Sustainability and Technology (iFOREST), who suggested that the critical viewpoints emerging from nations, including India and Colombia, should inspire a reevaluation of the UNFCCC process.
(Reporting by Roli Srivastava; editing by Megan Rowling)
What are the implications for developing nations if international climate finance commitments continue to fall short of what is needed to meet their NDCs?
S) from developing nations in the future. The agreement lacks the robust financial commitments that these countries require to achieve their climate goals. Without adequate funding, the ability of these nations to meet their NDCs could be severely hampered, potentially undermining global climate efforts.
India’s position underscores the broader concern that the allocation of climate finance remains unequal and that developing countries, particularly those in the Global South, might bear the brunt of climate impacts without sufficient support. As the world grapples with the escalating effects of climate change, the negotiation dynamics at COP29 highlighted the urgent need for a more equitable and just approach to climate financing.
The apprehension expressed by many countries reflects the reality that financial promises made at international climate conferences often do not materialize as expected. The disappointment over the terms negotiated in Baku is likely to resonate within the Global South, particularly among nations that are already facing significant climate-related challenges.
For a truly effective global climate strategy, there must be recognition of the unique vulnerabilities of developing countries and a commitment to providing the necessary financial resources to empower them to combat climate change effectively. The discussions at COP29 will likely set the tone for future climate negotiations and raise critical questions about who bears the responsibility for financing climate action in an increasingly imbalanced global landscape.