The United Nations’ Conference of Parties, COP29, was about climate and finance – the crisis brought on by climate change and the finance needed, especially by the developing countries, to cope with its impacts. The hard bargains, fractious negotiations, and the final text of the conference, as it closed in the picturesque city of Baku in Azerbaijan earlier in November, seemed unconcerned by the crisis and unwilling to commit the USD 1.3 trillion that the world would need.
The developed countries’ bloc haggled so hard over money that 134[1] developing countries nearly walked out putting the final text itself in jeopardy. In the end, the former consented to contribute USD 300 billion only – less than 25 percent of what’s needed. And this will start flowing from 2035. India’s strong objections to the text on the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance reflected the widespread discontent that the developing countries felt. The Indian representative remarked it was ‘too little, too distant’. India’s stance was supported by countries like Nigeria, Bolivia, and Pakistan; its objections were met with applause during the plenary.
The absurdity of the situation was staggering – leaders and representatives of the developed countries pretended as if the climate crisis did not matter, as if the world did not see its hottest year on record in 2024, as if unprecedented rainfall and floods did not touch nearly every country and city.[2] Between 2000 and 2019, the world suffered at least $2.8 trillion in loss and damage from climate change, which was around $16 million per hour.[3] A report by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) found that India’s GDP could reduce by 24.7 percent by 2070 because of rising sea levels and falling labour productivity due to climate change.[4]
Against this, the COP29 debacle begs the questions: is the COP broken (or breaking down) and how can climate action be reimagined?
For years, the conference has yielded precious little to combat the climate crisis. The Baku edition, more so, for those of us who have seen many. It stands out for what it did not achieve on financing climate mitigation rather than the little it did on food, forests, carbon markets, and nature. However, if the COP mechanism is broken, failing, or has outlived its usefulness – it yielded the Paris Agreement back in 2015 and the 1.5 degrees C limit for temperature rise – then on what other platform can the developing countries engage, negotiate, bargain, and squabble with the developed ones?
If COP remains the best available platform for the developing countries like India and poorer ones – battered by climate-related extreme weather events causing huge damage to people and economy – to make the richer nations pay for the global warming they caused, then how should the mechanism be reviewed and restructured? The COP can, indeed, be reimagined. But even if this comes to pass, the developing countries would still have to restructure their climate responses to make them more local, more ecology-oriented, more aligned with their realities, and more circumspect about global climate finance.
The last because climate finance as debt, from global private entities, will place an additional financial burden on these countries in the name of climate action. While the failing COP, evidenced in COP29, is sorely disappointing, it opens an opportunity for India – and the world – to reimagine it and local climate action.
Photo: Jashvitha Dhagey
The missed opportunity
COP29 was expected to deliver decisive outcomes on climate finance to fulfil the mandate of the Paris Agreement on collective quantified goals – or finance. The paltry commitment was a let-down but no movement was made on transitioning away from fossil fuels either which was a key aspect of last year’s COP in Dubai. Only three countries presented their new climate plans but they had limited information on how to harness nature to meet their emissions targets.
“Despite taking place just days after a major UN biodiversity summit,[5] the COP29 talks in Baku produced few new commitments on food, forests, land and nature. (It) saw few new country initiatives on tackling nature loss or references to the need to tackle biodiversity loss and climate change together,” noted Carbon Brief.[6] The conference fell short on other aspects too – an authoritarian petrostate hosting the global climate conference for the third year in a row, deliberations tainted by the presence of executives and lobbyists of fossil fuel companies,[7] climate activists and people’s organisations pushing their way to be heard at key sessions,[8] scant attention paid to local initiatives in poorer countries, less than scant focus on nature-based solutions and nature-led pathways to climate mitigation and adaptation.
Of the USD 300 billion that the developed countries grudgingly agreed upon, a substantial chunk will come as private finance – possibly as debt.[9] The lack of clarity on instruments and terms is troubling. Climate finance was expected to flow from public sources – as grants. Loans and debts from private entities would, in fact, exacerbate the financial burden on the developing countries. Moreover, they violate the historical commitment to Common But Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR) agreement.
It came as no surprise that India, among other developing countries, called the process “stage-managed”. With the conference delivering limited progress on critical areas – including the insufficiency of the Loss and Damage Fund (USD 800 million against an estimate of USD 724 billion) – negotiations largely focused on procedural matters. Urbanisation, highlighted positively in initial discussions on mitigation, was ultimately diluted in the final outcomes.
Spliced any which way, yet another COP failed to deliver. There’s no point in the developed world bellowing about climate impacts such as floods and heat waves – increasingly in its own countries – only to not walk the talk when it mattered the most. Perhaps, the time has come for the developing world to reform, reimagine, the COP mechanism to reflect this climate divide in the world. Among the many pro-reform voices was Al Gore, a former vice-president of the US and climate campaigner, who argued that countries without strong climate action plans should not host the annual COP and the influence of fossil fuel companies be stopped. That would be a start.
India, look within too
Countries like India can start by looking within and thinking of climate action in ecological terms, going beyond infrastructure and finance. India faces significant climate risks, particularly in its cities, which will house over 50 percent of the population by 2030. Cities contribute the majority of the GDP but are responsible for most emissions as well. Climate challenges like heat waves, flooding, poor air quality, water scarcity and waste management disproportionately affect their vulnerable populations such as informal workers and settlers.
While India’s outrage at COP29 was understandable – and correct – there is a case to be made for us to align climate actions with the diverse and local realities on the ground. India’s climate policies, such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) are out-dated and largely disconnected from urban realities. The state climate action plans focus mostly on mitigation rather than adaptation and building resilience; city-level climate action plans lack legal mandate and alignment with national goals.
Photo: QoC file
This fragmented climate action, dispersed across ministries, and weak decentralisation hinders India’s ability to effectively address the challenges. Importantly, the focus on building infrastructure to combat climate impacts has been on big ideas and big budgets while local-level actions and approaches are overlooked. Inadequate finance is, therefore, only a part of the jigsaw; climate action requires an honest assessment of local strengths, reassessment of natural areas in cities, reallocation of finance, respecting traditional knowledge systems, and backing innovations that are inexpensive. While India, and other countries, should bargain for more climate finance at the global level, it is equally crucial to focus on ideas, innovations, and money within.
India’s limited participation and lack of engagement with progressive climate declarations was apparent in Baku even as COP 29, on the side, launched the Multisectoral Action Pathways (MAP) Declaration and highlighted initiatives at local and city levels.
Reimagining climate action
With global geopolitics increasingly volatile and showing a distinct rightist-nativist shift across countries, resource constraints are likely to become more pronounced even as climate impacts increase. Most economies are still sluggish after the pandemic and conflicts. India can position itself in the global order along with a dominant China. While it must advocate for reimagination, or meaningful reform, in the COP framework, it must not wait for COP commitments and finance flows.
Its reimagination or recalibration can include measures at the global and local levels. Some are listed below.
At the global level:
Reforming COP: To ensure that the system remains focused on global climate action without undue influence, several reforms are necessary – the host country selection process should exclude countries heavily reliant on fossil fuel exports unless they demonstrate a clear commitment to transition away, host nations must show intent to uphold the Paris Agreement, more accountability and transparency at all levels, strong focus on implementation beyond mere talk, robust systems to be established to track progress and ensure transparent finance disbursals, and scientific evidence be more effectively integrated into negotiations.
Transforming COP into a continuous, solution-driven process: While global negotiations are vital, the COP framework is too slow and episodic. It must shift from negotiation to implementation for which the UN must move beyond viewing COP as a single annual event and adopt a more continuous approach. COP meetings should evolve into smaller and solution-oriented sessions held more frequently, and focused on accelerating implementation rather than prolonged deliberations.
Recognising multi-layered governance in climate actions: COP actions and discussions should extend beyond national governments and parties when climate actions are increasingly calling for multi-layered governance and collaborations. It is crucial to officially recognise the need for broader representation and include multi-layered governance actors as part of delegations.
Ensuring inclusive and transparent representation: COP must prioritise fair and equitable representation of all stakeholders, including indigenous groups, vulnerable urban communities, vulnerable nations, and the scientific community. Stronger transparency and regulations on lobbying are essential to limit the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists and ensure its integrity.
Recognising cities as critical drivers: The structural flaws in representation and focus on national-level negotiations means cities have been largely overlooked in discussions. Cities must be recognised as critical players and sub-national or local governance mechanisms must be represented. Moreover, COP negotiations must integrate urban systems into all discussions, not only in mitigation and adaptation, but in just transition measures, Nationally Determined Contributions, and National Adaptation Plans.
India’s opportunity to lead the Global South: While India may hold the line along with the countries of the Global South on climate finance delivery, it is important to take the lead to adopt ‘beyond finance first’ approach. This is seen in some measures domestically. India needs to forge South-South solidarity through support, financing, and sharing expertise with other developing countries. Moving beyond rhetoric will strengthen India’s position as a climate champion on the global stage.
Photo: QoC file
At the national level:
Establish a Ministry for Climate Change and Action: India must create an independent ministry to lead coordinated efforts on climate action. Currently a part of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change (MoEFCC), climate action needs a dedicated and powerful ministry capable of mobilising all arms of the government for implementation. This ministry would be instrumental in aligning national strategies with actions needed at state and urban local body levels.
Transforming NDC 3.0 into a transparent, inclusive, and ecological process: The impending Nationally Determined Contributions 3.0 must be seen as an opportunity, not as a burden from COP. This can be pivoted to a more ecological and nature-based one, done transparently with extensive public engagement and participation of diverse stakeholders, to ensure that local needs are addressed. If cities and their ecology are included as the core agenda, recognising their pivotal role in climate action, NDC 3.0 can deliver a more equitable, nature-based and effective climate strategy.
Strengthening India’s climate action framework: India must urgently update its policies on climate action, such as the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), initiated in 2008, to create a holistic framework to include a comprehensive plan and an implementation strategy. It should be aligned with international negotiation outcomes on mitigation, adaptation, just transition, and addressing loss and damage. And it should have dedicated sections on cities and urban communities – which is missing now.
Mandating climate action and budgeting across governance levels: To ensure effective implementation, climate action plans must be made mandatory at all levels of governance — national, state, and city – and be supported by dedicated climate budgets, and clear and actionable targets. All development must now be assessed through the climate lens and its impact on the most vulnerable communities.
Launch a national programme: India should initiate a national-level programme for action and resilience in cities and beyond. With dedicated schemes and financial support to empower local governments, especially in cities, it should enhance urban liveability and resilience by addressing both physical infrastructure and quality-of-life factors such as air quality, walkability, public transport, and the revival or development of green-blue infrastructure. This calls for a paradigm shift from traditional approaches in urban development.
People-centric climate action for inclusive cities: There is an urgent need to engage people and communities at scale, seeing them as active partners in climate action. Cities must broaden climate initiatives, ensure that voices and concerns of the most vulnerable and marginalised are prioritised. Climate action must include the lives, habitats, and livelihoods of these communities, addressing their current exclusion from the climate discourse.
Conclusion
The negotiations and outcomes of COP29 have offered India an opportunity to leverage its position as a key player in the Global South and call for a reimagined COP mechanism that serves the interests of the developing countries better. At the same time, India has the chance to reform its national approach to climate action, moving away from projects backed by large finance and global consultancies to people-centric local actions that segue into a national plan.
India need not wait for international agencies and negotiations; it can lead by example. A start can be made by placing cities as key drivers of climate actions with the ecological approach. All it needs is imagination – or reimagination – and action at the top.
Aravind Unni is an urban practitioner and researcher advocating for the inclusion of informal workers, settlements, and communities in urban planning and climate policies. As part of an Indian civil society coalition, he actively participated in COP29, closely engaging with and analysing the negotiation processes.
Cover photo: Dulari Parmar
