The COP29 climate summit concluded on a contentious note early on Sunday, with India leading a strong objection against what it deemed an inadequate climate finance deal. The deal, which was hastily approved by the Azerbaijan Presidency amid celebrations, sparked a backlash, particularly from developing nations, with India rejecting it as “stage-managed.”
India was the first to openly reject the proposal, claiming that it did not reflect the priorities of the Global South. This position was quickly supported by other developing countries and blocs, including the Like-Minded Developing Countries and Nigeria. India’s negotiator, Chandni Raina, expressed disappointment, emphasizing that the deal undermined trust and failed to address the concerns of developing nations. “Trust is the basis for all action, and this incident is indicative of a lack of trust,” Raina stated. She criticized the manner in which the decision was rushed through, highlighting that “gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system.”
Climate Finance Goal Deemed Insufficient
The newly adopted climate finance goal sets a target of “at least $300 billion per year by 2035,” along with the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T.” India strongly disagreed with the proposed goal, calling it insufficient and detrimental to their climate action. Raina pointed out that the amount proposed was “abysmally poor” and would not support the necessary climate action. She emphasized that such a sum, spread over a decade, would fail to meet the urgent needs of developing nations, which need at least $1.3 trillion by 2030 to address climate challenges.
India’s rejection was echoed by other countries, including Nigeria. “I could not go back to my country with only $300 billion. This is an insult to what the convention says,” stated Nigeria’s negotiator. The Like-Minded Developing Countries group and the G77, represented by Cuba, also strongly objected to the deal. Activists also criticized the deal, with Vaibhav Chaturvedi from CEEW calling it “the final nail in the coffin of 1.5°C,” highlighting the insufficiency of the funding to tackle the global climate crisis.
Inadequate Financing and Delayed Action
India’s objections were particularly focused on three problematic sections of the deal:
- Paragraph 8a: Allowing finance from a range of sources, including public, private, bilateral, and multilateral sources, which India felt placed the onus on developing nations.
- Paragraph 8c: Recognizing climate finance mobilized through multilateral development banks.
- Paragraph 9: Encouraging contributions from developing countries through South-South cooperation.
Raina explained that these provisions, especially with the financing spread over 11 years, left too much of the responsibility on developing countries. She stressed that the goal was not only too small but also too late to address the urgent climate needs of the Global South.
Support from Activists and Developing Nations
The deal’s shortcomings were echoed by activists and leaders from the Global South. Harjeet Singh from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative criticized the deal for failing to provide the necessary support for developing countries to transition to clean energy systems. Avantika Goswami from the Centre for Science and Environment accused developed countries of abandoning the Global South with a meager offer of $300 billion, adding that the lack of accountability would hinder progress.
Developed Countries’ Response
In stark contrast, developed countries celebrated the outcome. EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra praised the deal, calling it a “start of a new era on climate finance.” He claimed that COP29 had delivered an “ambitious and realistic goal” for climate finance. UN Climate Change executive secretary Simon Stiell also endorsed the deal, calling it an “insurance policy for humanity” while stressing the need for timely and full implementation of promises.
Criticisms of the Process
The adoption process itself was criticized for being unfair and rushed. Raina condemned the manner in which the deal was adopted, emphasizing that collaboration and trust were essential in addressing the global climate challenge. India expressed disappointment over the lack of meaningful engagement with developing nations during the decision-making process.
Long-Term Impact on Developing Nations
The deal’s deficiencies could have severe consequences for developing nations’ climate commitments. India highlighted the inequities between developed and developing nations, especially regarding historical responsibility and per capita emissions. The deal’s lack of accountability, combined with the insufficient financing, risks undermining global climate ambitions and delaying essential actions for the most vulnerable nations.
