A growing global concern regarding climate change led to the constitution of the Conference of Parties in 1995. Colloquially referred to as the “COP”, it is a global forum that brings together various stakeholders (state and non-state actors) in order to facilitate dialogue, negotiations and collective action to address the environmental concerns affecting the world at large. However, the recently concluded COP 29 has cast a shadow of scepticism over its efficacy and integrity. Questions have arisen as to whether this forum will genuinely propel us towards meaningful progress or whether it is merely a political farce of hollow promises.
Discussion Headlines & Failures
Expectations were high from the COP 29, hailed as the “Finance COP”. The UN Climate Change Executive Secretary, Simon Stiell, opened with an emotive speech followed by a video of him hugging his neighbour in front of her hurricane destroyed house. It failed to honour the pledge of switching to renewable alternatives for fossil fuel, which it took at the end of COP 28.
The New Collective Quantitative Goal (“NCQG”) was proposed for funding to support renewable resources and other climate actions in developing countries. These negotiations were sought as a means to amalgamate funds donated from developed countries to developing countries. There was, however, no proposal by developed countries to discuss the budgetary allocation till the 9th day of the conference. Countries such as Azerbaijan, Russia and China refused to entertain the notion of phasing out of fossil fuels. Moreover, no consensus was achieved as to the means of implementation, transformational adaptation and naturalization of the Global Goal on Adaptation (“GGA”) as a permanent agenda. The goals set out in the Paris Agreement were merely deferred for implementation in the future COP30 inconclusively.
As for the Just Transition Work Program (“JTWP”), no impending relief has been provided to those displaced, aggrieved and injured by climate change. While developed countries tunnel-visioned on a mitigation-based approach, the developing countries argued for a broader scope emphasizing on adaptation, finance, and equity as key considerations for achieving a true and just transition. The developed countries resisted the language of equity and the momentum created last year on the inclusion of labour rights was lost.
Expressions of Discontent: A Disgruntled Global South
Lines of tension were drawn when President Ilham Aliyev called fossil fuels, “a gift from the Gods” effectively undermining the whole agenda of the summit. Aliyev further inflamed tensions calling France’s island rule as “colonial rule” and alienating the EU block in a diplomatic failure. He also attacked the western ‘fake news media’ and western climate groups.
Further, the Least Developed Countries (“LDC”) & Alliance of Small Island States (“AOSIS”) were also systematically side-lined and they staged a walkout when in the extended time, the Azeri diplomats presented the assemblage with the meagre $250 million draft proposal for the NCQG. This highlighted the dissonance between the unwilling donor- global north and the weary global south. Evans Njewa, the head of LDC, told the room:
“We are not ready to associate with this paper and our sitting here means nothing to us. If you want to continue discussing on this paper, then you can do so – this will allow us to leave this room – when you are done, maybe you call us back.”
Furthermore, despite the endnote of COP28, the Saudis tried to ensure that fossil fuels are not addressed directly in the resolutions and conclusions, much to the annoyance of European nations and even UAE. In an hastily drawn last-minute resolution, “transitional fuels can play a role in facilitating the energy transition” was the only indirect mention of fossil fuels, referring to natural gas as a ‘transitory fuel’, much to the delight of the fossil fuel lobbyists.
India's Bold Opposition to Climate Finance Deal
India in an unprecedented move fiercely rejected the proposed finance goal of $300 billion to be provided for by the developed nations. Chandini Raina, an advisor from India’s department of Economic Affairs branded this deal as a mere “optical illusion”. She expressed that the NCQG is meant to overshadow the glaring inadequacies of the developed world’s commitment to global climate action. While superficially progressive, it merely perpetuates the illusion of advancement, taking away any actual and meaningful progress.
India’s objections also underscored the egregious procedural irregularities that vitiated the negotiations at COP 29. The rushed approval of the climate finance deal, devoid of any meaningful engagement and criticism, severely undermined the integrity of the due process that is customarily followed. India had sought the opportunity to voice their objections before the adoption of the decision. This opportunity was, however, denied which has led to the adoption of a deal that fails to address the pressing priorities of the most affected countries. The systemic inequities and power imbalances within the framework have come to the fore highlighting the need for a more inclusive negotiation process. Moreover, India's steadfast stance at COP 29 was monumental in championing the interests of the Global South. By repudiating the deal, India reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for equitable support for the developing countries. This resonated with other nations, including Nigeria who expressed their discontent and shared frustration for a more just and practically effective approach.
Conclusion
The recent COP 29 was supposed to be a pivotal point towards progress but instead, it revealed the deep fractures and political manoeuvrings that plague the global climate negotiations. The climate crisis demands real actions not hollow commitments. The events of the COP 29 are a stark reminder that without genuine inclusivity and equity, global climate justice will remain elusive and the world will continue to fall short where it matters the most.
Authors:
Ailis Anand and Ram Sumant are law students at National Law University, Jodhpur.
Comments