COP29: India rejects new USD 300 bn climate finance deal as inequitable

India on Sunday, 24 November, rejected a new climate finance package of $300 billion for the Global South at the UN climate conference in Baku, saying it was too little and too late.

While key nations agreed on the $300 billion climate finance deal for the Global South at the UN climate talks taking place in Azerbaijan — and legacy media organisations like the BBC hailed it as a ‘landmark’ for being tripe the last committed amount of $100 billion — the commitment is less than a quarter of the $1.3 trillion package the developing nations had called for.

Making a statement on behalf of India, Chandni Raina, adviser to the department of economic affairs, said they were not allowed to speak before the adoption of the deal — and called the outcome a target that is "too little, too distant" and said it "solves nothing for us".

"$300 billion does not address the needs and priorities of developing countries. It is incompatible with the principle of CBDR (common but differentiated responsibilities) and equity, regardless of the battle with the impact of climate change," she said.

"We are very unhappy, disappointed with the process, and object to the adoption of this agenda," the Indian negotiator said.

On the UN's side, Simon Stiell, the executive secretary for climate change, could only say, "We have delivered a deal."

In his closing address at the COP29, Stiell did acknowledge that "we leave Baku with a mountain of work to do" since no nation got "everything" they wanted. 

He did also issue a warning against "victory laps", saying, "This new finance goal is an insurance policy for humanity... But like any insurance policy, it only works if the premiums are paid in full, and on time."

Supporting India, Nigeria said the USD 300 billion climate finance package was a "joke". Malawi and Bolivia also lent their support to India's position.

Meanwhile, the climate advocates said the voices of the most vulnerable were sidelined, human rights and civil society participation ignored, and accountability swept under the rug.

Climate activist Harjeet Singh, the global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, said, "The outcome offers false hope to those already bearing the brunt of climate disasters and abandons vulnerable communities and nations, leaving them to face these immense challenges alone." 

Days before the close this weekend, Singh had warned while reviewing the earlier $250 billion proposal that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

According to several leading climate advocates — and not only voices from the Global South — the package on mitigation, adaptation and finance fails to deliver on the promises of the Paris Agreement and leaves the most vulnerable to pay the price for this inaction.

The goal of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) was to help nations protect their citizens and their economies against climate disasters and to encourage the clean energy technology boom. But the developing nations — which bear a disproportionate part of the climate fallout while developed nations contribute the greatest pressures on the environment — question whether there has been a serious attempt here.

With its central focus on climate finance, COP29 brought together nearly 200 countries in Baku, Azerbaijan. The agreement that developed nations would like the world to hail as a 'breakthrough' does offer to 'work together' to scale up finance to developing countries — from public and private sources — to the amount of $1.3 trillion per year by 2035. However, to a significant extent, this is envisaged as being delivered by way of loans — meaning, the financial burden of climate mitigation is again shifted back to developing nations... with interest.

Responding to outcomes, one negotiator told news agency IANS, "2024, the hottest year on record, marks the moment at which rich countries like the US and Japan pulled purse strings tight on the poor and fossil fuel-driven economies like Saudi Arabia attempted to splinter the global coalition in support of climate action, leaving the world's most vulnerable to find the compromises."

Chiara Martinelli, director at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, said the EU and rich countries have failed to deliver for the most vulnerable, adding, "This is not solidarity".

"Rich countries own the responsibility for the failed outcome at COP29. The talk of tripling from the $100 billion goal might sound impressive, but in reality, it falls far short, barely increasing from the previous commitment when adjusted for inflation and considering the bulk of this money will come in the form of unsustainable loans."

The group's international executive director Tasneem Essop said in statement, "This has been the most horrendous climate negotiation in years due to the bad faith of developed countries."

CAN South Asia's senior adviser Shailendra Yadav stated, "The NCQG figure of $250 billion is not a joke — it's an insult to those in the Global South rebuilding their lives from floods, heatwaves, and other climate disasters."

UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres tried to pour oil over troubled waters. "This was a complex negotiation in an uncertain and divided geopolitical landscape," he said. "I commend everyone who worked hard to build consensus. You have shown that multilateralism — centred on the Paris Agreement — can find a path through the most difficult issues.

"I appeal to governments to see this agreement as a foundation — and build on it," he requested.

Indian expert Dipak Dasgupta, who is a distinguished fellow at TERI, suggested the devil was in the details: "The $300 billion agreed — if absolutely, firmly, in the form of grants or highly concessional public money from developed countries as a group, and not from loans from multilateral development banks or private sources, as was also agreed — [would be] welcome. That would make a difference.

"Second, if the goal of $1.3 trillion remains firmly intact, again as agreed, and to be now spelled out concretely in the Baku-to-Belem roadmap, that is welcome, especially as it incorporates many other critical paragraphs spelled out explicitly in the agreement — from first loss to guarantees and other innovative financing, and to search for additional climate financing revenue instruments."

Even as the deal was gavelled through, though, Indian delegate Raina, raised objections. "We wanted to make a statement prior to any decision on the adoption. However, this is for everyone to see: this has been stage-managed and we are extremely disappointed with this incident."

Aarti Khosla, director of Climate Trends, said, "The decision to have a new climate finance goal that replaces the $100 billion 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...

"The final agreement was objected to by India [because] 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."

For Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation, COP29 took place in tough circumstances but she expressed the hope that it showed at least that multilateralism is alive and more necessary than ever, even if the present outcome was disappointing for many.

"The climate finance agreement is not as ambitious as the moment demands," she agreed.

However, she added, "The framework it establishes provides a foundation to build on. Every country with the means to help must step up. There is no going back on the UAE consensus: We cannot achieve the aims of the Paris Agreement without a just transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and energy efficiency."