India's Roadmap to COP33 Rethinking Climate Finance Post-COP29

The global economy is preparing for the upcoming COP30 and for that to happen, there is a lot to learn from COP29. This conference helped put into numbers the need to fill the gaps in climate finance alongside the deep-rooted issues that exist. Closing the gaps requires a movement away from minor upgrades to major and intentional changes that are embedded with elements of equity, accessibility, and accountability, says Abhinish Boora in this article.

- Abhinish Boora

Climate change consequences are deepening around the world, and climate finance gap needs to be filled in with urgency and importance in equal measure. Meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan, COP29 called for a change in the global perspective on how climate-related activities are financed by tackling the issue of inequality and inefficiency in the financial obligations. Real steps have been taken in addressing the deficit in climate financing, but there is a pile of challenges to surmount, especially for the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

Gaps in the Current Commitments of COP29 Global Climate Change Conference

The COP29 was hosted in Baku, Azerbaijan, with the aim to make COP29 a ‘Finance COP’ with a focus on restructuring inequalities in climate funding. In the review sessions, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) was hot in the debates instead of the old $100 billion target set for 2009. It was agreed that the developing countries would be funded on a triples basis but critics consider the bush $300 billion annual goal unjustifiable as $1.3 trillion would be required to achieve the world's climate goals.

Costing preferences in terms of loans as opposed to grants also triggered a lot of dispute. The majority of developing countries were already in debt and loans presented them with opportunities cost that further restrict their possibilities to funding adaption and mitigation programmes. In addition, the stagnant procedural arguments such as contributors and recipient countries and other executive policies demonstrated the persistent market imperfections in the global finance governance. Such ingredients, along with the postponed debates concerning the modalities of the Loss and Damage Fund clearly alienated the developing countries.