India Criticizes COP29 for Ignoring Objections in Climate Finance Deal

India has accused the presidency of the 29th United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP29), hosted in Azerbaijan, and the UN Climate Change Secretariat of pushing through a controversial climate finance agreement by bypassing its objections. This allegation emerged after the COP29 presidency allegedly prevented India from formally voicing dissent against the deal before it was adopted during the conference’s closing plenary session early on Sunday.

The finalized agreement commits developed countries to mobilize $300 billion annually by 2035 to help developing nations combat climate change. However, this target is significantly reduced from the $1.3 trillion per year originally demanded by India and other developing nations.

India has criticized the adoption process, with its negotiator Chandni Raina calling the manner in which the decision was adopted a “stage-managed” process that ignored objections. She stated, “We have seen what you have done… gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system… We absolutely object to this unfair means, followed for adoption.” She added that India had informed both the presidency and the secretariat of its intention to make a statement before the decision’s adoption. “However, and this is for everyone to see, this has been stage managed. And we are extremely, extremely disappointed with this incident,” Raina emphasized.

India has termed the adopted deal an “optical illusion” and outrightly rejected it. Bolivia, Nigeria, and Cuba also voiced their disapproval, arguing that the deal fails to address the priorities of developing countries. However, their rejections hold no legal weight, as the decision has already been formally adopted. In response, Mukhtar Babayev, the COP29 president, said these statements would be included in the final report.

India’s opposition to the agreement revolves around three primary concerns: the amount of finance is inadequate, the timeline is too delayed, and the deal dilutes the accountability of developed nations under the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, holds developed countries primarily responsible for historical carbon emissions and obligates them to financially support developing nations in their climate initiatives.

India described the agreed-upon sum of $300 billion per year as “abysmally poor” and “paltry.” During the closing plenary, Raina remarked, “Regardless of our battle with impacts of climate change, it is a fact that developing countries are accused continuously of emissions, forgetting the high per capita emissions of the developed countries, forgetting also the historical responsibilities of the developed countries. This only adds to the problem at hand for us, and the proposed goal shall not solve anything for us.”

According to the UNFCCC’s Standing Committee on Finance, developing nations require an estimated $6.852 trillion cumulatively to address climate challenges, underscoring the insufficiency of the $300 billion figure.

The timeline is another contentious issue. Under the Paris Agreement, developed nations were supposed to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020, but independent studies have revealed that less than a third of this target was achieved. By extending the timeline for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) to 2035, India and other developing countries argue that developed nations have once again shirked their responsibilities.

Another criticism centers on the sources of the $300 billion. The NCQG decision allows developed countries to count private sources and multilateral development banks (MDBs) in meeting the target. Developing countries argue that this shifts the burden onto other entities and legitimizes loans as climate finance, further indebting poorer nations. Raina pointed out, “Counting finance flows from MDBs into the overall goal is not a progression into the $100 billion goal but a deflection of the responsibility of developed countries towards developing country shareholders of the MDB.”

Adding to the controversy, the NCQG decision permits voluntary contributions from developing nations. Raina criticized this, stating, “It is not right that you expect that from a developing country.”

India had initially proposed a climate finance target of $1 trillion annually, later increasing its demand to $1.3 trillion with the backing of most developing nations. However, developed countries, including the United States, European Union, Australia, and New Zealand, resisted these higher figures. Despite intense backroom negotiations during the final days of COP29, India and a few other nations stood firm against the diluted targets.

Ultimately, the COP29 presidency bypassed these objections, leading Raina to express deep disappointment: “The only thing that enables us to move beyond and undertake action in line with addressing this challenge is collaboration and trust among us. It’s a fact that both have not worked today. And we are extremely hurt by this, this action of the presidency and the Secretariat.”

Observers of climate negotiations noted that this was not the first instance of controversial decision-making at a COP event. In 2010, Bolivia’s objections were overridden to adopt the Cancun Agreements, and in 2023, members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) accused the COP28 presidency of adopting decisions without their presence. These incidents highlight ongoing tensions between developed and developing nations in global climate forums.

Harjeet Singh, a climate activist and global engagement director for the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, warned that sidelining developing countries in decision-making processes jeopardizes global climate justice. He remarked, “Silencing and sidelining the voices of developing nations at UNFCCC forums, as demonstrated by India’s experience at COP29, strikes at the heart of global climate justice. The UNFCCC is the only platform where countries, regardless of size or economy, can advocate for equitable climate solutions. Marginalising these voices perpetuates historical injustices, erodes trust in multilateralism, and threatens the very foundation of effective, inclusive climate action.”

The controversy at COP29 underscores the ongoing struggles between developed and developing nations over climate finance and accountability. India’s strong opposition serves as a reminder of the critical need for equitable and inclusive global climate solutions.