In a dramatic turn of events at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, India made headlines by rejecting the adoption of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance. The decision, seen as a moment of triumph for some, was met with sharp criticism from India and several developing nations, spotlighting the stark divide in global climate negotiations.
The Controversial NCQG Decision
The NCQG text, hastily adopted amidst applause, set a target of $300 billion annually for developing nations by 2035, with developed countries expected to “take the lead” in funding. It also introduced the “Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3T,” which outlines scaling up climate finance to $1.3 trillion.
However, India’s objections arose not just from the inadequate financial commitments but also from the opaque process. Despite seeking the floor to voice its concerns, India was denied the opportunity to speak before the decision was finalized.
Chandni Raina, India’s finance ministry advisor and negotiator, articulated India’s deep dissatisfaction:
“Trust is the basis for all action, and this incident is indicative of a lack of trust. Gavelling and trying to ignore parties from speaking does not behove the UNFCCC’s system. We absolutely object to this unfair means of adoption.”
Support from Developing Nations
India’s stance resonated with other developing nations. Nigeria’s negotiator echoed India’s sentiments, labeling the $300 billion target as insufficient and insulting to the UNFCCC’s principles. The Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) coalition also backed India, emphasizing that the decision failed to address the critical needs of the Global South.
Civil society organizations joined the chorus of disapproval. Harjeet Singh, Global Engagement Director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative, criticized the NCQG as:
“A financial deal woefully inadequate to address the gravity of our global climate crisis.”
The Divide Between Developed and Developing Nations
While developing nations rallied behind India, developed countries celebrated the agreement as a breakthrough. EU climate envoy Wopke Hoekstra hailed the NCQG as:
“The start of a new era on climate finance… With these funds, we are confident we’ll reach the $1.3 trillion.”
This divide underscores the recurring tensions in climate negotiations, where the priorities and resources of the Global South often clash with the ambitions of wealthier nations.
The Larger Implications
India’s rejection of the NCQG highlights the persistent inequities in climate finance and governance. Developing nations, which contribute the least to global emissions but bear the brunt of climate disasters, continue to demand a fairer share of resources and decision-making power.
The incident also raises questions about the credibility and inclusiveness of global climate negotiations. Trust and collaboration, as Raina pointed out, are foundational to addressing the climate crisis—both of which were conspicuously absent in this instance.
COP29 will be remembered not just for its ambitious financial goals but also for the controversies that underscored the session. India’s bold stand has reignited the debate on equity and justice in climate finance, setting the stage for future negotiations. As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, ensuring trust and fairness in global climate agreements will be critical to achieving meaningful progress.
