Now that the thirtieth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP) is drawing near, it would be a good idea to go over the jargons related to climate change and see the latest position with respect to each one of them. This will help us to fortify ourselves adequately to appreciate the next turn of events during CoP30 and after. CoP30 is being held in Brazil (Belem) from the 11th to 21st of November, 2025 and the venue is considered to be the gateway to the Amazon forests. The several jargons that we need to refresh include the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), the global stocktake, the global goal on adaptation (GGA) and so on.
Let’s first of all deal with the subject of NDCs. This concept was introduced in the CoP held in Paris (2015) where one moved away from the concept of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) and put the onus on each individual country to formulate its own plans and reduce its carbon footprints. The concept of CBDR had actually forced the developed nations to lay down targets for reduction in carbon emissions. The developing nations were exempted since it was the developed nations which were primarily responsible for climate change, being the main polluters. The countries who were to lay down targets were individually mentioned by the generic name of Annex 1 countries in the Rio de Janeiro declaration (1992) and by the name of Annex B countries in the Kyoto protocol (1997). The countries named in both lists are almost the same but not identical. The developed nations managed to shirk the responsibility placed on their shoulders and spread it equally amongst all nations. There is no denying, however, that unless the developing nations too reduce their carbon footprints, no substantial gain can be made as far as climate change is concerned. The Paris Agreement (PA) had stated that the NDCs would be revised every five years and each subsequent NDC would be made more stringent. Practically all the signatories to the PA had submitted their NDCs and had also revised them around 2020. There was delay, however, due to the pandemic. The NDCs are due for revision now and were to be submitted by February 2025 to give new targets for 2035. Till date, only about 61 countries have submitted their revised NDCs which covers around 31% of the global emissions. Some of the G20 countries who have submitted their revised NDCs include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan and the United Kingdom (UK). UK, incidentally, has set up a very challenging target of reducing emissions by 81% from the 1990 figure (by 2035) as against the previous target of a reduction by 68% from the 1990 figure (by 2030). Incidentally, India is yet to submit its revised NDC. Going by reports appearing in several fora, the latest revision of the NDCs falls short of expectations and is not in harmony with the targets laid down in the PA. In any case, even with the NDCs which were submitted after the first revision around 2020, it was apprehended that the earth’s temperature would rise anywhere between 2.5 to 2.9 degrees centigrade (by 2100 compared to the figure in around 1850) as against a target of 1.5 degrees. A fresh assessment would be made after all countries submit their NDCs, hopefully before the next CoP commences.
Next is the issue of transfer of resources from the developed to the developing world. Way back in 2010 at Cancun (CoP16), it was agreed that a sum of $100 billion per year would be made available to the developing nations. This sum of money was more of a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation without any due diligence. The actual sum required is in trillions of dollars and not billions. Energy transition is a capital-intensive exercise and the developing world has no means to raise this money. The fact is that even this meagre sum of money was not made available even though repeated demands were made in every meeting of the CoP. It needs to be pointed out that the implementation of the plans formulated in the NDCs of the developing world is contingent upon the receipt of funds by way of grants, concessional loans, etc. If transfer of resources does not take place, the rise in the earth’s temperature would be more than what has been estimated. If one goes by the data put out by the OECD countries, an impression is being given that close to a $100 billion has actually been disbursed, at least in the last three to four years. However, this is misleading, as most of the disbursements have been in the form of commercial loans, which do not align with the mandate, since the funds are meant to be provided as grants or concessional loans. The fact that most of the money has gone for mitigation projects (as against adaptation) nails the lie in the OECD data. Mitigation projects have an income stream and hence, the funds of the lenders are secure. Setting up of a solar generation plant would be a mitigation project, whereas developing drought-resistant seeds would be an adaptation project. It has been estimated that only about 10% of the climate finance is directed towards adaptation. So, if at all, climate change has given a window to the developed world to channel its funds to the developing nations in order to earn an income. In the last meeting of the CoP at Azerbaijan, a decision was made that in place of $100 billion, a sum of $300 billion will be made available annually by 2035. If one includes funding from all sources including the private sector, the figure goes up to $1.3 trillion. Actual requirement by the developing world, however, would be at least six times this figure. This resource transfer is now known by a new name, NCQG. In the meantime, some more funds have been constituted, for example, the loss and damage fund (constituted during CoP27 at Sharm El-Sheikh), which will especially cater to the small island states which have suffered extensive damage due to rise in sea level. The available kitty though, is very small (about $ 800 million) and woefully inadequate. Yet another fund has been initiated in the previous CoP (2024) by Azerbaijan called the Climate Finance Action Fund, which aims at raising $ 1 billion. This fund will become operational when at least 10 contributing countries become shareholders. All such funds are merely cosmetic in nature, are voluntary, and do not serve any purpose other than to give the impression that something is being done. What climate change requires is deep pockets and not a plethora of funds whose coffers are almost empty. Not only do these funds (including the NCQG) have no money, the nuts and bolts remain hazy as to who would be the beneficiaries, etc. Deciding that itself will be a herculean task and may consume several rounds of future CoP meetings.
A number of reports have been published in the last few years giving details of how grim the climate situation is and how it is becoming increasingly worse over time. To mention a few reports, we have the UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report (2025), IPCC’s AR6 report, also known as the Global Stock Take Report (2023), UNDP’s Climate Inequality Report (2023), WRI’s State of Climate Action (2025), etc. What needs to be highlighted is that carbon dioxide has reached 422 ppm (in 2024) and experts opine that we need to limit it to 450 ppm if temperature rise has to be contained within 1.5 degrees centigrade. In the year 2023, we added 2.3 ppm, which means that we are going to touch 450 ppm very soon. Closely linked to this is the subject of climate justice. How should the small space that is available to us be used? What should be the share of the developing world in this who in any case have very small per capita emissions? This is a very complicated issue, and by the time it can be resolved, if at all, one would have touched 450 ppm.
All these issues mentioned in the preceding paragraphs would be discussed during CoP30, but whether a solution will be found or not is anybody’s guess. Brazil has indicated that CoP30 should be known as the ‘Implementation CoP’ where all the ground rules have been laid down, and one now has to work in unison to get matters expedited. Discussions will also be held to finalise the list of indicators for determining the global goal of adaptation, where the number of parameters have been reduced to about 100 odd. A new agenda for discussion is Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) which will be a funding mechanism to incentivise the protection and restoration of tropical and sub-tropical moist broadleaf forests in developing countries. Furthermore, the discussions will likely include the recent verdict of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), delivered a few months ago, which held the developed world responsible for the adverse impacts of climate change. Though this verdict is purely advisory, it’s a shot in the arm for those who are crying for climate justice.
At the end of the day, one really wonders whether there is any meaning in having a yearly meeting of the CoP where a humongous amount of money is spent. Irrespective of what is being touted, actual achievements are minuscule. Carbon emissions are still on the rise. To top it all, countries like the United States keep walking out of the PA despite being the highest cumulative carbon emitter in the world. This is having an adverse demonstration effect on countries that are fence sitters when it comes to dealing with climate change. Nobody wants to talk about climate justice, a sensitive term for the developed world. It has been more than 15 years since the amount of $100 billion a year was decided, and even today, only a small fraction of this is being provided in the form of grants/concessional loans. Technology transfer is almost unheard of. In fact, the subject of climate change is being used to usher in restrictive trade practices, like the carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM) of the European Union. Countries are openly canvassing for the use of more fossil fuels, for example, the ‘drill baby drill’ slogan of the United States. One can sense the frustration that is creeping into the minds of the developing world, especially the small island states, which can literally see their land mass being swallowed by the rising sea. Perhaps, the only utility of the CoP meetings is that it keeps putting some pressure on countries who seriously believe that something needs to be done and India is one of them. To sum up, one can safely conclude that the yearly meetings of the CoP will not ensure limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees centigrade by 2100. However, one can take solace from the fact that in case CoP is dissolved, the ill-effects of climate change would be many times more and therefore, it may be in our interest to continue having this ritual every year.
(Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of ICRIER)
