On November 15, during a COP30 negotiation meeting on finance at Belem, India accused developed countries of violating and deviating away from the Paris Agreement, and demanded that climate funding should be “predictable, additional, and devoid of greenwashing”. Several countries and country groups supported India in its tirade against the developed countries bloc.
India made the intervention speaking on behalf of the LMDC group (like minded developed countries). New Delhi alleged that the “new collective quantified goal (NCQG)” value arrived at the Baku climate summit last year, $300 million from 2035, was a ‘suboptimal decision’ without a clear commitment from developed countries.
The submission is important in the context of the overall negotiations, which have been running almost round the clock even over the weekend in Belem. That is because the LMDC group represents a bloc of developing countries in talks at the United Nations and the World Trade Organization and represent more than 50 per cent of the world’s population.
On November 17, India’s environment, forest and climate change minister Bhupender Yadav is scheduled to join the meetings, and many expect him to continue with the aggressive stand. Many believe it is a counterpoint to the mounting pressure on India for not submitting its nationally determined contribution (NDC) yet despite the deadline having passed at September-end.
Yadav will be making a statement in the afternoon on November 17 local time.
NDC is a country’s climate action plan to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement.
India accused developed countries of ignoring the mandatory provision of Article 9.1 under the Paris Agreement.
“ …The provisions of finance under 9.1 is a legal obligation of developed countries, not a voluntary act; Article 9.3 expects developed countries to also lead in mobilisation,” said Suman Chandra, the Indian representative in the meeting, explaining out how the climate finance decision at Baku deviates from Paris Agreement taken a decade back, despite being a legally enforced agreement and being ratified by close to 200 countries.
“Grants and concessional resources under Article 9.1 can lower the cost of capital, facilitating a robust pipeline of investments in developing countries,” further pointed out the representative.
“We reiterate that 9.1 of the Paris Agreement sits at the core of the discussion on climate finance … provisions of finance (should be made) in a way that is predictable and additional and devoid of concerns of greenwashing,” said India and observed that a proper financial decision is critical for any progress on Paris Agreement and the decisions of COP 30.
Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement states “…Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention” while Article 9.3 only asks the developed countries to “continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources”.
In Baku, while the UN process calculated the NCQG amount to be $1.3 trillion every year. But finally, after a prolonged negotiation that had overshot the scheduled deadline by over a day, developed countries only agreed to a sum of $300 billion in annual support from 2035. This was less than one-fourth of the target.
During the ongoing COP, a Baku to Belem financial roadmap was presented jointly by the presidents of both COP29 and 30 together; though climate experts allege that the roadmap lacks adequate vision and penetration on the ground.
India has also pointed out that the recent synthesis report, prepared according to the Paris Agreement mandate, shows “certain developed countries also reported a decrease in financial support compared to the previous years, with reductions ranging from 51 to 75 per cent and 76 to 100 per cent respectively”.
In a significant move on climate diplomacy, the Indian representative thanked the Chinese representative in her submission for “highlighting how that imbalance (mitigation and adaptation) exists so starkly” in the financial roll out of developed countries.
China, in turn, supported India’s position and said the climate finance support system should stay true to the original purpose and spirit of the convention and the Paris Agreement; the small island vulnerable countries want the finance to be predictable, transparent, and responsive. Bangladesh, representing least developed countries, pointed out that climate finance is a matter of survival, justice, and human dignity. Saudi Arabia, on behalf of the Arab group, echoed India stating that “…Articles 9.1 and 9.3 are cornerstones for operationalisation”.
But climate activists smell a rat in such aggressive posturing by India. “While India’s stand is fine, it’s strange as to why they agreed to the final draft in Baku and did not oppose on the same grounds as they are, quite rightly, mentioning here. It seems to be a case of chasing a shadow,” pointed out a climate activist.
“It may be a diplomatic move countering the mounting pressure on India for yet not submitting the NDC despite the deadline passed at the end September,” said another activist who has been following India’s climate stand closely over the years.