As the first round of COP30 negotiations at Belém, Brazil, was drawing to a close, India, during a meeting on Saturday on climate finance accused developed countries of violating the Paris Agreement and deviating from it. India demanded that climate funding should be “predictable, additional and devoid of greenwashing”. Several countries and country blocks supported India in its attack on developed nations.
India made this intervention speaking on behalf of the Like Minded Developed Countries (LMDC) group and alleged that the “New Collective Qualified Goal (NCQG)” figure arrived at COP29 at Baku last year, USD 300 million annually starting from 2035, was a ‘suboptimal decision’ without a clear commitment from developed countries.
The statement is important in the context of the overall negotiations, which have been running almost round-the-clock even over the weekend at the COP30 venue in Belém. The LMDC group represents a block of developing countries in the negotiations at the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. More than 50 percent of the world’s population live in these countries.
India’s environment, forest and climate change minister Bhupender Yadav is scheduled to arrive at COP30 on Monday and many expect him to continue with the country’s aggressive stand. This, many believe, is a counterpoint to the mounting pressure on India for not submitting its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), the national climate plan, despite the deadline that expired end-September.
An NDC is a country’s statement on reducing emissions and adapting to climate change under the conditions of the Paris Agreement.
Article 9.1 mandatory, but has been ignored
India accused developed countries for ignoring the mandatory provision of Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
“ …The provisions of the finance under Article 9.1 is a legal obligation of the developed countries, not a voluntary Act. Article 9.3 expects developed countries to also lead in mobilisation,” said Suman Chandra, the Indian representative at Saturday’s meeting. The Plurals has a transcript of the meeting. Chandra elaborated how the climate finance decision at Baku deviated from the Paris Agreement of 2015, despite it being a legally enforced agreement and 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,” Chandra added.
“We reiterate that (Article) 9.1 of the Paris Agreement sits at the core of the discussion on climate finance…provisions for finance (should be made) in a way that is predictable and additional and devoid of concerns of greenwashing,” said India, observing that proper financial decision is critical for any progress on the Paris Agreement and the decisions of COP30.
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 mobilising climate finance from a wide variety of sources”.
In Baku, the UN processes had calculated the NCQG amount as USD 1.3 trillion every year. But at the event, finally, after prolonged negotiations that had overshot the deadline by over a day, developed countries had only agreed to a sum of USD 300 billion annual support from 2035, less than one-fourth of the target.
Many developed countries are cutting down on financial support
At Belém, a Baku to Belém financial roadmap was presented jointly by the presidents of COP29 and COP30. Climate experts, however, feel that the roadmap lacks adequate vision and reach on ground.
India has also pointed out that the recent synthesis report that looks at all NDCs submitted so far and prepared according to the Paris Agreement mandate, shows “certain developed countries also reported a decrease in financial support (to developing countries) compared to the previous years, with reductions ranging from 51 to 75% and 76 to 100% respectively”.
Activists think India reaction may be to counter NDC pressure
In a significant move on climate diplomacy, the Indian representative thanked the Chinese representative in her submission for “highlighting how that imbalance (between mitigation and adaptation, with mitigation attracting a disproportionately high investment) exists so starkly” in the financial roll-out from developed countries.
China, in turn, supported India’s position and said that 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 wanted climate finance to be predictable, transparent and responsive. Bangladesh, representing the least developed countries, pointed out that climate finance is a matter of survival, justice and human dignity; while Saudi Arabia on behalf of the Arab group echoed India stating that “ …Articles 9.1 and 9.3 are cornerstones for operationalisation”.
Climate activists smelled a rat in India’s aggressive posturing. “While India’s stand is fine, it’s strange why they agreed to the final draft in Baku and did not oppose on the same ground what they are, quite rightly, saying here. It seems to be a case of chasing a shadow,” a climate activist said.
“It may be a diplomatic move countering the mounting pressure on India for yet not submitting the NDC despite having missed the deadline in end-September,” said another expert, who has been following India’s climate position over the years.