Climate meeting concludes in discord as India rejects a climate finance deal; developed countries celebrate the outcome

The COP29 climate talks ended in unprecedented acrimony early on Sunday as India led a fierce pushback against what it called a “stage-managed” climate finance deal, moments after the Azerbaijan Presidency hastily gavelled through a contentious proposal amid celebrations, with UN and COP29 Presidency officials embracing.

India was the first to reject the decision for not reflecting the priorities of the Global South — a dismissal since endorsed by several developing countries and blocs including the Like-Minded Developing Countries and Nigeria.

“We are extremely disappointed. Trust is the basis for all action and this incident is indicative of a lack of trust,” declared Chandni Raina, the negotiator from India and a finance ministry advisor. “This is also a lack of collaboration on an issue which is faced as a global challenge by all of us, most of all the developing countries that are not responsible for it.” “Gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system and we would want you to hear us and also hear our objections to this adoption,” Raina added, as her intervention received roaring applause from developing country parties.

The hastily adopted text sets a climate finance goal of “at least $300 billion per year by 2035” and launches the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T.” However, India identified specific problems that could fundamentally alter climate finance obligations:

“As we struggle to deal with climate change, the outcome proposed in the paper will further affect our ability to adapt to climate change, greatly impact our NDC ambition, and its implementation… will severely affect our growth,” Raina explained, emphasising that “the amount proposed to be mobilised is abysmally poor, it is a paltry sum and it will not enable climate action.”

Pointing out that the sum is too small and will only be delivered 11 years later, she specifically highlighted three problematic paragraphs:

Paragraph 8a: Allowing finance from “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral”

Paragraph 8c: Recognising climate finance mobilised through multilateral development banks

Paragraph 9: Encouraging developing country contributions through South-South cooperation

“That is almost 11 years later and that too from a wide variety of sources so it would be private, multilateral and there are large amounts of it left for developing countries to mobilise on their own. The goal is too little and too late. The 2030 estimates tell us that we need to do is at least USD 1.3 trillion until 2030,” Raina said, formally rejecting the declaration

Nigeria immediately backed India’s position. “I could not go back to my country with only $300 billion. This is an insult to what the convention says,” Nigeria’s negotiator stated. The Like Minded Developing Countries group and G77, represented by Cuba, also strongly objected. Activists backed the criticism as well. “The COP29 decision on NCQG is the final nail in the coffin of 1.5°C. Accelerating mitigation actions without the required means of implementation is only a fool’s dream,” said VaibhavChaturvedi from CEEW. NCQG refers to the New Collective Quantified Goal on climate finance which in other words refers to the next round of climate funding – the matter at the heart of the dispute.

“At COP29, developed nations once again coerced developing countries into accepting a financial deal woefully inadequate to address the gravity of our global climate crisis. The deal fails to provide the critical support required for developing countries to transition swiftly from fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy systems, or to prepare for the devastating impacts of the climate crisis,” said Harjeet Singh from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative.

DEATH KNELL FOR CLIMATE AMBITION

“The Global North has abandoned the South with this meagre offer of $300B; it has no right to demand mitigation ambition from our part of the world with so little finance on the table. The ambiguities of the goal make it clear that there will be little accountability and traceability of funds. This was the last remaining window for the North to step up, pay its fair share, and restore some semblance of trust in the multilateral process. They have failed,” said AvantikaGoswami, programme manager for climate change at Centre for Science and Environment.

“Deeply disappointing that the world couldn’t agree on a goal reflecting even a modicum of ambition for financing action in developing countries on climate change, the biggest challenge facing humankind,” said ManjeevPuri, former Indian ambassador and Distinguished Fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute. In stark contrast to the Global South’s dismay, developed nations celebrated the outcome. “COP29 will be remembered as the start of a new era on climate finance. The EU will continue to lead. This COP delivered an ambitious and realistic goal and an increased contributor base,” declared EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra.

UN Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell called it “an insurance policy for humanity,” but warned that “like any insurance policy – it only works – if premiums are paid in full, and on time. Promises must be kept, to protect billions of lives.” He added: “This deal will keep the clean energy boom growing, helping all countries to share in its huge benefits: more jobs, stronger growth, cheaper and cleaner energy for all.” Linda Kalcher, executive director of Strategic Perspectives, offered a measured assessment: “This was a hard fought two weeks amid challenging geopolitics that resulted in a step change for financial reforms. Public finance from a growing set of contributors, especially multilateral development banks, and new forms of finance, will help to unlock $1.3 trillion by 2035.” She added that “the litmus test on fossil fuel phase out will be whether national climate plans due by February show clear pathways to reduce coal, oil and gas consumption.”

PROBLEMATIC PROCESS

The deal’s problems extend beyond its content to the manner of its adoption. “We are absolutely object to this unfair means of adoption. We are faced with one of the biggest challenges of all times which will determine our existence. The only thing that enables us to move beyond and take action in line with addressing this challenge is collaboration and trust among us. It is a fact that both have not worked today. We are extremely hurt by this action of the Presidency and the UNFCCC Secretariat,” Raina emphasized. The text’s structure drew particular criticism for: One, setting a goal that’s “too little and too late,” coming only in 2035; Two, relying heavily on MDB financing, which India sees as a deflection of developed countries’ responsibilities; three, including problematic footnotes qualifying even the limited commitments; and four making way for developed countries to shift financing burden to developing nations through paragraphs 8a, 8c, and 9 The deal’s inadequacies could severely impact developing nations’ climate commitments. As Raina noted, “Developing countries are accused continuously of emissions, forgetting the high per capita emissions of developed countries and historical responsibility.” By R. Dangol