As one of the Global South’s leading States, India is in a prime position to represent Global South interests in climate governance issues.
—
THE United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the basic framework for addressing climate change.
It is supported by the Paris Agreement— the world’s leading climate treaty, which seeks to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C. The agreement contains a number of provisions that encourage all nations to take climate action, among which is Article 9— a clause in the treaty that states “developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the convention.”
Alongside this commitment is Article 2.1(c) of the agreement, which stipulates that, in enhancing implementation of the UNFCCC, the agreement should “make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.
Neither of these clauses appear problematic, however, India has recently pointed out a misinterpretation of Article 2.1(c) by the Global North that has highlighted the absence of a Global South voice in climate governance.
Article 2.1(c) has yet to be fully operationalised. The Global Stocktake being conducted by the UNFCCC is a chance for States to assess progress on climate action and identify critical gaps in climate governance essential to the equitable protection of the climate, including in relation to the implementation of Article 2.1(c).
Also read: Dignity in the times of climate change
India’s recent submission outlining its expectations for the Global Stocktake has claimed that “Article 2.1(c) is being used by developed countries to restrict official development assistance for essential fossil fuel development and force a high rate of mitigation on developing countries.”
In other words, because some aspects of finance that the Global South requires for climate mitigation and adaptation may not align with the Global North’s interpretation of Article 2.1(c), the Global North is withholding or under-delivering on its wider obligations under Article 9 to provide this finance.
Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement stipulates that in enhancing implementation of the UNFCCC, the agreement should “make financial flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development”.
This violates the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, whereby account is taken for the fact that it will take the Global South longer to reach net zero emissions due to their limited resources and need for a base of fossil fuels to accelerate development.
The International Energy Agency estimates that US$160 billion per year is needed, on average, across India’s energy economy between now and 2030 if it is to reach net zero emissions by 2070.
Thus more finance is needed for energy pathways where India has shown leadership, in particular with its commitment to solar energy. The misinterpretation of Article 2.1(c) by the Global North hampers efforts to pursue these pathways and reflects a wider gap in Global South representation within climate finance affairs.
The lack of adequate Global South representation within climate governance is exacerbated by the actions of Global North States that underscore the hypocrisy of their inadequate provision of finance.
Through their interpretation of Article 2.1 (c), the Global North is trying to impose a higher mitigation burden on the Global South by tying climate finance to heightened fossil fuel phaseout commitments that do not align with developmental needs.
Also read: Climate change and air pollution: Two sides of the same coin
Yet at the same time, leading Global North States that have the resources to accelerate fossil fuel phaseout, have contradicted these goals by expanding their own existing sources of oil and gas.
For example, the UK’s actions in the North Sea have resulted in government approval of hundreds of new oil and gas licences and a go-ahead for the Rosebank oil and gas project, while Norway is expanding on oil and gas projects in the Arctic, exacerbating an already dire situation in one of the Earth’s most critical ecosystems.
By pursuing fossil fuels with one hand and claiming leadership over Article 2.1(c) implementation with the other, the Global North weakens the case for the Global South to take greater climate action.
India’s submission to the Global Stocktake has shed light on the general frustration of the Global South with Global North leaders on climate governance. Even as the actions of Global North countries on climate change disproportionately impact the Global South, climate finance is still not being distributed fast enough or in a fair enough manner to bolster efforts to enhance resiliency.
As one of the Global South’s leading States, India is in a prime position to represent Global South interests in climate governance issues.
By pursuing fossil fuels with one hand and claiming leadership over Article 2.1(c) implementation with the other, the Global North weakens the case for the Global South to take greater climate action.
Rather than being a hindrance to access to finance, Article 2.1(c), were its implementation to encompass influence from developing countries through leaders such as India, could redirect funds from developed countries toward equitable climate protection.
Governance of Article 2.1(c) and broader climate finance matters must, therefore, encompass India, and other members of the Global South, who can play an active role in ensuring the Global North is fair and equitable in its provision of funding.
