Friday 03 / January / 2025
New Delhi: During landmark hearings to form a so-called “advisory opinion” on the obligations of states regarding climate change held December 2-13, 2024, at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), India sharply criticized developed countries for their role in causing the climate crisis.
On the heels of the 29th Conference of the Parties (COP 29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Baku, the ICJ court is deliberating on the matter, and its advisory opinion is to be announced in due course. India has accused the developed nations of exploiting the global carbon budget, failing to honor climate-finance commitments, and unfairly demanding that developing countries curb their resource use.
The court is currently assessing the legal obligations countries have to address climate change and the repercussions if they fail. The climate finance issue was brought before the ICJ due to the persistent failure of developed nations to fulfill their climate finance promises.
India also urged the ICJ to avoid imposing new obligations beyond the existing climate-change framework. “The court should avoid the creation of any new or additional obligations beyond those already existing under the climate change regime,” India’s representative Luther Rangreji told the ICJ.
The country emphasized that any considerations should account for historic emissions, climate justice, the principle of equity, and the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), as well as equitable access to the global carbon budget. Stressing the principle of fairness and equity, India argued, “If the contribution to global environmental degradation is unequal, the responsibility should also be unequal.”
Upgrading $100 billion per year in climate finance, pledged at the 2009 Copenhagen summit was a significant commitment, but it remains far from being fully realized. Over the years, there have been ongoing discussions and negotiations to enhance this commitment, but the target has not yet been met, and the amount remains a topic of debate and concern among developing nations. The commitment has only reached $300 billion, far short of the trillions needed.
Following the recent climate finance agreement reached at the COP29 United Nations (UN) climate change conference in Baku, wealthier nations committed to allocating $300 billion annually to support developing countries by the year 2035.
The actual funding requirement is $1.3 trillion annually. According to the Independent High-Level Expert Group (IHLEG)’s November 2023 report on climate finance, the projected investment needed for climate action in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), excluding China, is $2.3-2.5 trillion per year. However, the final New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) text only aims to scale up to $1.3 trillion by 2035 “from all public and private sources,” and urges “all actors” to contribute to this target.
During the adoption of the USD 300 billion climate-finance package at the UN climate conference in Baku, the Indian delegation strongly protested. The final figure of USD 300 billion was significantly lower than the most recent compromise of USD 500 billion proposed by the G77 nations.
Delivering India’s strong statement, Chandni Raina, Adviser at the Department of Economic Affairs, criticized the manner in which the deal was adopted, calling it “unfair” and “stage-managed.” She was highly critical of the climate-finance package, labeling the USD 300 billion per year by 2035 as “too little and too distant.” Raina described the sum as “abysmally poor,” “paltry,” and an “optical illusion,” highlighting the vast gap from the USD 1 trillion needed annually by developing countries to address climate challenges.
India has criticized the shortfall in financial commitments, highlighting the significant disparity between the widely discussed target of USD 1.3 trillion in annual funding and the finalized New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of USD 300 billion by 2035. This underscores the urgent need for adaptation funding to tackle the challenges impacting billions around the world.
Labeling COP29 as “steeped in semantics rather than solutions,” a senior Indian official criticized the proceedings as a lost chance to mobilize effective climate finance for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Leena Nandan, Secretary of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change, represented India at COP29. During the conference, she emphasized the need for adequate climate finance, technology transfer, and international cooperation to address climate challenges and emphasized India’s leadership in voicing the concerns of the developing world. Discussing the results of COP29 during a session, she remarked that the conference, which was expected to prioritize implementation, ultimately did not meet expectations, “This was to be an enabling COP, a COP which was going to be focused on the means of implementation and what is means of implementation other than funds and resources. And here it was that we found semantics and not solutions. We found rhetoric and not results. And that has been the biggest disappointment.”
India has expressed concerns over the absence of a clear definition of climate finance, asserting that this allows developed countries to overstate their contributions. Without a precise definition, claims about the mobilization of funds remain unverifiable. Additionally, developed nations seem more interested in tracking mitigation efforts rather than ensuring the actual transfer of concessional finance to developing countries.
India firmly opposed the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), describing it as a trade measure that unfairly targets developing countries. Nandan pointed out that the G77 nations and China backed India’s stance, arguing that CBAM is fundamentally inequitable. Secretary Leena Nandan remarked, “Where is the justice when developed nations, after consuming the bulk of the carbon space, impose coercive trade measures instead of facilitating decarbonization.”
Speaking at the “Future Earth: People’s Participation in Climate Resilience” conclave, on December 9 in New Delhi, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav stated that India is at the forefront of combating climate change by meeting its targets and leading international efforts for global cooperation in this field. The minister also said that India is leading the fight against climate change, not only by achieving its targets but also by spearheading international initiatives to foster global cooperation in this area. India did indeed advocate for a recalibrated climate finance at COP29 that justly addresses the needs of developing countries and focuses on accountability, green credit, fair financing, and incremental goals for the developing economies.
India has the potential to transform the $1.3 trillion commitment into a tangible solution that meets the needs of developing countries. With the roadmap for increasing climate finance, spanning from Baku to Belém (the host of COP30), set for discussion over the coming year, India must strategically engage to champion the interests of the ‘global south’.
An authoritative opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change may provide much-needed legal guidance on the obligations of states to address climate change. This depends on how far the ICJ can incorporate principles of equity and fairness, potentially influencing how climate responsibilities are distributed, especially between developed and developing countries. What’s essential is a significantly more ambitious program to enable poor countries to purchase the large quantities of solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines the world can produce. Although these funds might not yield a substantial return in the narrow financial sense, the global benefits will be immense. If every country can industrialize and achieve prosperity through clean energy, the advantages will far outweigh the initial costs.
With over a hundred nations and organisations presenting, this is the biggest case ever before the ICJ. Critics argue that the ICJ’s advisory opinion, expected to take months or even years to finalize, will be ineffective because it is non-binding on states and lacks enforcement mechanisms. However, there is expectation that the ICJ will establish a legal precedent that could impact domestic climate legislation and litigation. Ultimately despite enforcement mechanisms, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) “strikes a delicate balance among diverse interests and enjoys near-universal adherence.”
