COP29: Baku Climate Talks Extend into Overtime Amid Disputes Over Finance for Developing Nations
MOHAN KHOUND

The climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, originally scheduled to conclude on November 22, 2024, have entered overtime, as developing nations rejected the proposed New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) for climate finance.
This proposal, put forth by developed countries, suggests providing $250 billion by 2035—an offer that falls drastically short of the $700 billion needed by 2030 and well below the “trillions” demanded by developing countries to address climate change effectively.
As negotiations linger, the stark divisions between developed and developing nations have become glaring.

Developing countries have insisted that the NCQG must be made available as grants or low-cost loans to help them transition from fossil fuels, mitigate emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and address climate-induced damage.
Conversely, developed countries are seeking flexibility in the financing mechanisms, emphasizing reliance on private and alternative funding sources over direct government contributions.
An Inadequate Proposal?
The NCQG is intended to replace the $100 billion annual pledge made in 2009, which developed nations agreed to mobilize for developing countries from 2020 to 2025. While the Paris Agreement reaffirmed the need for a revised goal by 2025, the current draft has drawn sharp criticism.
Civil society organizations and experts have highlighted that the proposed $250 billion annually by 2035 is, in real terms, equivalent to the initial $100 billion promise when adjusted for inflation. Moreover, the latest draft text references a wider variety of funding sources, including private and multilateral avenues, diluting the onus on developed nations.
Vaibhav Chaturvedi, a senior fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), dismissed the offer as a “bad deal” for the developing world, emphasizing the absence of low-cost or grant components.
“This diluted commitment undermines the very essence of the NCQG. It’s a far cry from the trillions required, leaving developing nations to fend for themselves amidst escalating climate crises,” said Chaturvedi.

Developing Nations Hold Firm
Representatives from developing countries have called for more robust commitments, reflecting historical emissions by developed nations and their per capita GDPs. Union Environment Secretary Leena Nandan of India underscored the need for transparency, structure, and grants within the NCQG, pushing for $1.3 trillion annually by 2035, with at least $600 billion in grants or grant-equivalent resources.
The lack of clear guidelines for fund distribution—particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)—further complicates matters. Delegates from vulnerable nations such as the Marshall Islands voiced their frustration, emphasizing that their survival hinges on adequate financial support.
Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, poignantly remarked, “We cannot play geopolitics with the lives of our citizens. The proposed text neither ensures the 1.5-degree world we strive for nor equips us for the 2.7-degree world we seem to be heading toward.”
A Growing Trust Deficit
The talks have also laid bare a significant trust deficit. Developed countries have claimed that they mobilized $115 billion in 2021-2022, but developing nations counter that much of this sum stems from investments and profit-driven initiatives rather than genuine climate finance. This distinction between climate finance in general and the NCQG remains a contentious issue.
Furthermore, developing countries are demanding accountability for the promises made. A person close to the negotiations revealed that of the $100 billion previously pledged, only about $20 billion constituted public finance—the remainder came from private sources. The proposal to expand the contributor base and rely heavily on private sector actors has drawn ire from countries that view this as a dilution of responsibility.

A World Hanging by a Thread
The urgency of the Baku talks is amplified by the latest scientific findings, which show that carbon emissions are likely to increase by 0.8% in 2024 compared to the previous year. Current commitments by nations are projected to reduce emissions by only 2%, far below the 43% required to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Ecology and Natural Resources Minister and COP presidency leader, issued a statement calling for greater ambition and inclusivity to resolve the impasse. Yet, many fear that the final agreement will fail to meet the scale of the crisis.
The stakes remain high as delegates scramble to reach a consensus. For the most vulnerable nations, the outcome of these talks could mean the difference between survival and collapse.

A Test of Global Commitment
As the clock ticks in Baku, the climate negotiations highlight the enduring disparity between the global North and South. While developed nations wrestle with financial and political constraints, developing countries continue to bear the brunt of climate impacts, with little assurance of the financial lifeline they desperately need.
The extended talks are a stark reminder of the complexities of global climate diplomacy—where ambitions often collide with political realities. The world now watches anxiously to see whether Baku will deliver a meaningful path forward or serve as yet another symbol of missed opportunities in the fight against climate change.

23-11-2024
Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com(For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary) Images from different sources.