India’s Intervention at the Plenary Session of the UNFCCC-CoP29

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

azadi ka amrit mahotsav

India’s Intervention at the Plenary Session of the UNFCCC-CoP29

Posted On: 21 NOV 2024 11:02PM by PIB Delhi

India today expressed disappointment at the shifting of focus from enablement of adequate Climate Finance to emphasis only on mitigation, at the Plenary Session at the CoP29 of the UN Climate Change Summit in Baku, Azerbaijan. India aligned its stance with the statement made by Bolivia on behalf of Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDCs) and reiterated that the process of the fight against Climate Change has to be guided by the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, as the Global South continues to face the intense impacts of Climate Change.

Delivering India’s statement, Secretary (MoEFCC) and Dy. Leader of the Delegation, Ms. Leena Nandan said, “We feel disappointed by the fact that we continue to shift focus when the time has come to ensure that the mitigation actions are fully supported through provisions of adequate Finances as per CBDR-RC and equity considerations. CoP after CoP, we keep talking about mitigation ambitions - what is to be done, without talking about how it is to be done - in other words, the enablement of mitigation ambitions. This CoP started with Focus on enablement through New Collective Quantitative Goals (NCQG), but as we move towards the end, we see shifting of the focus to mitigation.”

India firmly asserted that any attempts to deflect the focus again from Finance to repeated emphasis on mitigation cannot be accepted. The statement read, “All countries have submitted their NDCs and will be submitting the next round of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) being informed by the various decisions we have taken together in the past as well as on the basis of our national circumstances and in the context of sustainable development goals and poverty eradication. What we decide here on climate finance will certainly influence what we submit next year. The attempt by some parties to further talk about mitigation is primarily a shift in focus from their own responsibilities of providing finance.” The statement called for a ‘Balance in the Climate Discourse’, and added, “If not so ensured, we may have continuous talk of mitigation that has no meaning, unless supported by enablement that is needed to make climate actions happen on the ground.”

India put forth its stance on the following issues that are critical in the fight against Climate Change. They are:

NCQG

India highlighted that as grant-based concessional Climate Finance is the most critical enabler to formulate and implement the new NDCs, action will get severely impacted in the absence of adequate means of implementation. The statement read, “The document needs to be specific on the structure, quantum, quality, timeframe, access, transparency, and review. The goal for mobilisation needs to be USD 1.3 trillion, with USD 600 billion of this coming through grants and grants equivalent resources. Expansion of the contributor base, reflection of conditional elements such as macroeconomic and fiscal measures, suggestion for carbon pricing, focus on private sector actors for scaling up resource flows as investments – is contrary to the mandate for the goal. NCQG is not an investment goal. We must accept that climate actions by Developing countries will have to be country driven, in line with their circumstances and in the manner best suited to country priorities.”

Mitigation

India strongly protested against changing the scope of the Mitigation Work Programme (MWP) in the draft text. India further cautioned against shifting of temperature goals, which need to be as per the exact language in the Paris Agreement. India called the introduction to the targets for 2030, 2035 and 2050 in the preamble as purely prescriptive.

India urged to add to the text certain elements like noting the pre-2020 mitigation gap by Annex-I Parties; noting with strong concern that the emission of Annex-I Parties is increasing from 2020 to 2030 etc. India strongly urged to recall the negative impacts of coercive unilateral measures on climate action specifically mitigation ambition and implementation.

Just Transition

India strongly declined to accept any renegotiation of the shared understanding prevalent on ‘Just Transitions’ in the decision from Dubai. The statement read, “Just transition is interpreted in narrow domestic terms, implying that it is national governments that have to take actions to ensure domestic just transitions. However, we have repeatedly made the point that Just transitions begin globally with Developed countries taking the lead in mitigation and ensuring that they provide the means of implementation to all Developing countries.”

India statement further said, “We have also repeatedly made the point that the possibility of our domestic transitions, our right to development, and our over-riding priority to pursue sustainable development, is constrained by repeated and ongoing inaction of Developed countries. The current text completely disregards this point that we have been making about our understanding of just transitions, which is also reflected in the Dubai decision. We absolutely cannot accept these paragraphs. They are prescriptive and completely reinterpret just transitions.”

GST

On the GST India stated the following:

India does not agree to a follow up of the GST outcomes. As per Paris agreement, GST is supposed to only inform parties to undertake climate action.

The new chapeau on Enhancing Action, Support and International Cooperation has been drafted without adequate connection or integration with the text, parts of which are under negotiation on the UAE dialogue.

The last text from the negotiations undertaken by Parties was one that captured the views of all Parties and was a viable basis for further negotiation. The new options under the Section titled Modalities of the UAE dialogue does not capture this at all.

The new chapeau has no connection with the subject matter of finance which is the main aim of the UAE dialogue.

Further, the phrase “with developed countries (as per the synthesis report of the Biennial Reports) on track to increasing their emissions by 0.5 per cent from 2020 to 2030” may be added after the phrase “by 2.6 per cent by 2030 compared with the 2019 level”.

Though the new chapeau title is general, the text added is completely mitigation centric and completely unbalanced. India does not accept this text.

India does not accept the way the options have been formulated in the Timing and Format sections of the UAE dialogue.

Adaptation

India shared the following five points, which are essential to consider the draft decision:

Final outcome should include indicators on means of implementation in order for this work on global goal on adaptation to be meaningful.

There is no need to further focus on transformational adaptation. Instead, it is important to focus on other approaches such as incremental adaptation, long term adaptation in the context of national circumstances.

The data used for reporting on indicators should be taken from Party submitted reports and not from any third party databases. Therefore, this text may be dropped.

Language on Establishment of Baku Road Map as a means of continuing work pertaining to the global goal on adaptation, is essential.

Indicators should reflect the progress in the GGA goals. Further segregation may not be required.

In conclusion, reiterated that this CoP is the Finance CoP - the Balancing CoP, the enabling CoP. The statement read, “If we fail here, we fail in the fight against Climate Change for which the onus should be on those who are obligated to provide finance for climate action.”