Written by 
As curtains came down on the extended COP29 summit in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku in the early hours of November 24, participants and activists returned with two contrasting takeaways. Developed countries and the United Nations displayed a sense of achievement. Negotiators from developing nations, including India, on the other hand, returned with a sense of déjà vu – empty-handed and yet with a sense of satisfaction for having managed to reiterate their long-held positions on the pathways to climate action.
While the jury is still out on whether COP29 was a failure or a success, the developing world is acutely frustrated. For these nations, the event goes down in the history of global attempts at concerted action to deal with climate change as yet another wasted opportunity. Rich nations again fell drastically short of the commitments needed to support poor countries. Not only did COP29 re-expose the deep divisions between rich and the poor nations, but it sent an ominous signal that the fight against climate change is turning out to be a lost war.
The hastily adopted deal sets a climate finance goal of “at least $300 billion per year by 2035” and launches the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T.” The $300 billion goal represents a tripling of the public finance to the developing countries from the previous goal of $100 billion annually. Neither effort, however, has impressed the developing world, whose representatives have alleged a conspiracy and set the required amount at $1.3 trillion, quoting independent experts. The Azerbaijan COP presidency has been alleged to have played to the need to arrive at a deal at any cost, even while it did not meet the expectations of a majority of the participating nations. Not surprisingly, as U.N. and Azerbaijani officials embraced a sense of achievement, echoes of “betrayal” by developing nations were heard in the conference venue.
India was first off the blocks to reject the package. One of India’s official representatives, Chandni Raina, said that the amount “does not address 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.” Raina alleged that her team was not allowed to speak before the adoption of the declaration. India’s position has drawn support from a host of nations, which are adamant that such a paltry sum is nowhere close to meeting the needs of poorer nations.
On the contrary, the EU and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat have hailed the deal as the “start of a new era of climate finance” and “insurance policy for humanity,” respectively. The UNFCCC and the EU highlighted the expansion in the number of contributors, which will make money available to a larger number of nations. For instance, Afghanistan, which participated in COP29 after a hiatus of several years and the first time after the takeover by the Taliban, will be eligible to receive climate finance.
The EU envoy said the amount agreed upon is a “realistic goal,” indicating that the developed nations may have reached the limits of their capacity and intent to help developing nations with their energy transition goals. The current geopolitical turmoil, such as the war in Ukraine, has stretched the capacities of the developed world to make additional finances available.
Apart from complaints about the hasty adoption of the deal, India identified an unequal focus on mitigation by developed countries, ignoring the concepts of per capita contribution to carbon emission and the history of the developed countries’ responsibility for climate action as the crux of the problem. In the early stages of negotiations in Baku, India and other developing countries stressed mitigation enablement, focusing on the NCQG (New Cumulative Quantitative Goal on climate finance) discussions. However, as the conference drew to a close the focus had shifted to mitigation alone, without any substantial pledge on providing finances, according to India’s allegations.
The lack of adequate financing has been a persistent issue from the developing world’s perspective. Not only is there insufficient money in various climate funds, but developed countries have consistently fallen short of fulfilling their commitments. Moreover, there is also the question of who receives the limited available funds and whose needs get prioritized. This is where the notion of the developing world as a unified bloc begins to break down.
In recent years, there has been a push to reassess the 1992 definition of a developing country, particularly regarding whether robust economies like China, Saudi Arabia, and India should be considered equivalent to poorer African nations. Given the limited financing available, shouldn’t these economically stronger countries contribute to the funds rather than claiming a share of them? India and others have resisted this growing clamor, only to be repudiated by countries like Nigeria, whose outlook on climate change is otherwise close to New Delhi’s.
India, China, and Saudi Arabia have also resisted the attempts to stress a clear and identified pathway for lessening their dependence on fossil fuels. As 25 countries and the EU made a “no new coal” pledge, a host of countries including India, China, and even the U.S. refused to back the plan. Despite increasing urgency to cut emissions and a global pledge at the 2021 Glasgow climate summit to “phase down” coal, its use has surged, with China in the driver’s seat. India too continues to open new coal plants, which environmental groups have termed unnecessary but in the absence of any assistance to achieve just energy transition remains justifiable to policymakers in New Delhi.
Differing national priorities and objectives have always been a roadblock in developing a unified approach in the world’s fight against climate change. The situation may worsen if the United States under Donald Trump chooses to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, again. New Delhi may have claimed a high moral ground by repudiating the COP29 deal, but the time may have arrived for a new way of negotiation to build the much-needed consensus on climate action.