Climate finance still stands as the most complex, thorniest, and unresolved issue at the United Nations Framework for Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC). Right from the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the conversation has been essentially about developing countries asking for funds from developed countries to accelerate climate action. Within two decades, this issue has spilled over to other discussions such as loss and damage compensation, climate adaptation fund, and Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. With the way the world is approaching 1.5 degrees, substantial and stepped-up climate action commitments will be required by all countries – small or big, rich or poor. While this is undebated and accepted by all nations, all shouts for increased climate financing from developing countries seem to be falling to deaf ears. Holding developed countries accountable and liable for compensation to past emissions is the new age climate prosecution. The promised allocation of $100 billion climate financing weakened over the years, while climate extreme events significantly strengthened. Disgruntlement, distrust, and dilution of commitments, coupled with persistent blame games, take precedence when the promises are not kept.. This, along with the United States swinging out and in of the Paris Agreement, reduces the credibility of this subject altogether. Amidst this backdrop, let’s look at what happened during the climate finance negotiations at United Nations Climate Change Conference – COP26.

At COP26, most climate finance negotiations revolved around legal jargon, with the delegates occasionally discussing where to place a past participle. This was surprising because most delegates come from countries where English is not their first spoken language. Spending an abundant amount of negotiating time correcting grammar seemed to be imprudent. However, there were also heated discussions when incorporating certain words in the final text meant different interpretations and repercussions for different countries.

For example, countries had a hard time deciding what to include in the text to address the $100 billion climate finance gap. South Africa, on behalf of the African group and supported by India, Brazil, Tunisia, and Ghana, demanded the inclusion of words like “significant gap and performance”, “reduced trust”, and “notes with great concern”. On the other side, the developed countries, mainly led by the United States (US) and European Union (EU), opposed it, demanding “milder and more neutral text”. They insisted on incorporating the words “welcomes continued efforts of developed country Parties”. The AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) group demanded a balanced text to treat the $100 billion gap. Norway intervened, saying that there is a need to use “milder words but also acknowledge” that there has been a gap. Seeing the discussion not going anywhere, Switzerland intervened, saying that the negotiations feel like “moving backward” and that there will be no progress if we proceed like this. They requested a balance in the texts and urged the co-facilitators to use their “best judgment and proceed”. India expressed their “disappointment and frustration” towards developed countries who talk about climate action on the one hand and provide poultry contributions on the other hand.

At this point, the time allocated for the agenda point was over. The co-facilitators urged the negotiators to resolve the issue informally and communicate the final decision by the end of the day. The final text, as incorporated in the cover decision, reads as:

“Notes with deep regret that the goal of developed country Parties to mobilize jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation has not yet been met, and welcomes the increased pledges made by many developed country Parties and the Climate Finance Delivery Plan: Meeting the US$100 Billion Goal4 and the collective actions contained therein;”

Deciding this one-line text took countries hours of discussions, several interventions, and an informal breakout meeting. This exemplifies how countries are dealing with the issue of climate finance: with care, caution, and consciousness. Strong words, accusatory tone, and causal references to previous documents are taken very seriously. However, these snail-paced technical proceedings seem to not much help the common collective goal of climate action to keep the 2.0 degrees within reach. Another example involved a lengthy debate, essentially between the choice of two words – urges or requests. Should the developed country Parties be “urged” to step up climate finance, or should they be “requested” to step up climate finance? When the planet is suffering from an event that threatens the existence of the entire human realm, arguing about the structural construct of language felt very trivial.

The other big agenda item continuously pushed by the developing countries at COP26 was the loss and damage fund, which essentially calls out the developed country parties to compensate the poorer countries for the damages caused due to climate extreme events. This fund differs from the climate adaptation fund and stems from the disproportionate historic responsibility to global emissions. While many developing countries argue for the urgent necessity of these funds, the resistance from the developed countries ensured that the agenda item gets pushed back by at least another year. However, as a first, the Scottish government pledged £1m to support the victims of the climate disaster and simultaneously also tripled Scotland’s financial commitments, notably using the word “reparations”. Towards the end, the countries also unanimously agreed to operationalize and leverage the Santiago Network, which will catalyze technical assistance in climate-vulnerable countries.

On Article 6 – carbon markets, which enables companies to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions, the developing countries urged that the share of proceeds from the market transactions should be diverted towards the climate adaptation fund to help countries build resilience. Subsequently, the countries agreed to a “5% commission fee” that will be levied for new credits traded under Article 6.4, which requires a centralized governance system called the Clean Market Mechanism (CDM), but not for credits traded under Article 6.2, which allows countries to strike bilateral and voluntary agreements to trade carbon units. This contentious issue, although now resolved, had halted the implementation of the Paris Rulebook since 2015.

Overall, the issues around climate finance remain notoriously slow. While the language of words is brimming with urgency, the pace of climate action remains painstakingly sluggish. Spending an infinite amount of time choosing words between “urges” vs. “requests”, “lack of efforts” vs. “continued efforts”, and “charity” vs. “reparations”, even though in the best of spirits, is helping very little to what the world is currently facing. Climate change is happening, and it is happening right now. And soon, it will grow into a global catastrophe that will be unseen, unavoidable, and unimaginable in scale. With that in mind, I do not think we have sufficient time to even “urge” or “request”. We just need to “act” and “act fast” enough because the clock has always been ticking.