COP28: Should India and China receive or pay climate damage fund?

India comes in third and China is the major transmitter of house gases in the world.

Why is there debate over whether the two nations may contribute to a fund to address the harm caused by climate change when they both have sizable markets?

The issue persists even after COP28, the the UN ( UN) climate change conference held this year in Dubai, announced a deal between nations to start the fund’s operation and 18 countries pledged funding for it.

The Vulnerable 20 Group ( V20 ), which has 68 developing countries as members, reported in 2022 that 55 of its members ( the rest joined recently ) had lost$ 525 billion ( £414.2 billion ) as a result of climate change over the previous 20 years. This represented one-fifth of their money.

Although China and India are not among these nations, they contend that they too have underprivileged populations in need of like a fund’s monetary assistance.

According to a UN report from 2022, developing nations will require more than$ 300 billion annually to combat climate change by 2030. It continued,” Our capacity to mitigate and adapt to climate change is closely related to our need for damage and destruction financing.”

In order for poorer countries that have been affected by climate-related disasters, such as communities displaced by floods or rising sea levels, to recover and become rehabilitated, the fund aims to offer financial assistance.

Damage and destruction refer to a condition in which communities are unable to conform to or plan for atmospheric impacts because the damage has already been done, which is different from climate adaptation funds.

The damage and harm bank was formally established during next week’s COP27 in Egypt following years of conflict between developed and developing nations.

At COP28, the deal is scheduled to go into effect. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, which has been monitoring financial commitments at COP28, fifteen developed nations and the host country of the UN, a developing country, have so far made money commitments totaling about$ 660 million.

The US, a developed nation and the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and other developed countries say China and India may meet them in not only significantly reducing emissions for effective global climate activity, but also making contributions to the bank.

China and India, however, disagree, claiming that their great emissions are more recent than those of developed nations like the US and the UK.

They also assert that because they are also developing nations, as defined by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they actually qualify to receive the loss and damage fund to which they have been asked to lead.

County discussions about how to create the finance work have been contentious in the year since COP27, but in October 2023 they came to an agreement.

The comments, which have since been approved by COP28, “urge” developed nations to help the damage and damage bank and “encourage” others to do so voluntarily.

Additionally, the decision demonstrates that all developing nations are qualified to submit cash applications.

However, negotiators claim that the decision has never resolved the conflict between created nations and significant developing economies like China and India over who should receive the fund or pay for it.

A mediator from a Western nation who asked not to be named said,” The sources of funding still remain an important controversial issue that has been parked for now.”

In 2006, China surpassed the US as the world’s largest carbon dioxide ( CO2 ) emitter.

However, China and India both contend that established nations ‘ emissions of greenhouse gases started in the 1850s, the start of the professional era, and contributed to the climate crisis.

In the the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC), the two Asian giants also emphasize the idea of” common but differentiated responsibilities,” which essentially states that all nations have a duty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but that each nation’s share of responsibility varies depending on their needs for development.

That same debate has also received support from numerous legal societies and climate activists.

According to Liane Schalatek, associate producer at Heinrich Boll Stiftung, a US-based international organization that closely monitors damage and destruction negotiations,” The large loss and problems we are seeing right now are the consequence of 30 years of largely foot-dragging by developed countries on reducing their emissions faster and providing climate finance to developing countries.”

She argued that it was morally inappropriate and dishonest to beg developing nations to contribute to the new account on an equal standing with developed nations.

But, developed nations contend that the classification of nations is out of date and needs to be changed.

In 1992, states were classified as developed and developing. Since then, according to reviewers, a lot has changed, especially in nations like China and India that are now significant economies and leading transmitters of greenhouse gases.

They claim that an example has now been set with the UAE, a developing nation on the UNFCCC list, having pledged$ 100 million for the account.

An private negotiator from a European nation added,” We hope not only China and India but also other states, including Saudi Arabia, which are listed as developing nations in 1992, will see themselves more as contributors to the bank than consumers.”

A few tiny island states even repeated that message.

The Alliance of Small Island States ‘ cause damage and destruction finance negotiator, Michai Robertson, contends that big economies like China and India must fulfill a “moral responsibility to join with the fund.”

The entire council ( including developed and developing countries ) acknowledges that we need beyond developed states as well and other parties to get involved by using the words “encourage other party parties for providing bank” in the proposal.

However, this is not the first instance in which a culture bank has required considerable time to establish.

The discussion surrounding the loss and damage climate finance is compared by a plan and advocacy agent I spoke with to an earlier climate finance pledge that has still not been carried out.

Given the ten-year trust gap that is at the center of UN climate negotiations, it is not surprising that many developing nations view this as little more than a postponing technique, according to Ross Fitzpatrick of Christian Aid, an organization dedicated to alleviating poverty.

The failure of wealthy countries to fulfill their prior commitment to provide$ 100 billion in annual climate finance starting in 2020 is the best example of the trust deficit.

This$ 100 billion commitment to climate finance was made by developed nations at the 2009 climate summit in Copenhagen, separate from the loss and damage climate account.

According to Aarti Khosla, the director of Climate Trends, a Delhi-based organization that studies loss and damage discussions and other weather issues, as long as that commitment is not carried out, big developing nations will always have an argument against making any commitment to the Los and Damage Climate Fund.

The definition of” common but differentiated responsibilities” also changes, according to her, “because the convention’s principles ( the 1992 UN climate convention ) call for evolving obligations.”

But without the developed world keeping its earlier claim, it is difficult for China and India to contribute to the account.

Currently, BBC News India is available on YouTube. To listen and view our films, explanations, and features, click here.