Q13. Discuss the challenges associated with the climate-change negotiations and assess the conflicting perspectives between developed and developing countries experienced at Glasgow during COP26.

“Climate change is a common concern of humankind.” UNFCCC Preamble

COP26 (Glasgow, 2021) highlighted both consensus and deep divisions. While parties agreed to limit warming to well below 2°C, tensions persisted on finance, responsibility, adaptation, and implementation reflecting structural inequalities between developed and developing countries.

Challenges in Negotiations

• Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR): Developed countries insist on universal action; developing nations insist historic emissions and capacity differences require differentiated obligations.
• Climate Finance: Developing countries demand scaled-up finance for mitigation and adaptation. The long-promised $100 billion/year pledge (2015) remained unmet; at Glasgow finance mobilization and COP agreements were seen as inadequate (UNFCCC overview).
• Loss & Damage: Vulnerable states sought operational mechanisms and funding for irreversible impacts. Developed parties resisted a standalone funding mechanism fearing open liability. Glasgow established a dialogue but no dedicated fund a major point of contention.
• Carbon Markets (Article 6): Finalising rules for international carbon markets proved technically and politically fraught (double-counting, environmental integrity concerns). Glasgow advanced Article 6 but left open implementation tensions.
• Emission Reduction Ambition vs. Implementation: Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) remained insufficient; many commitments were conditional, chest-beat rather than binding.

Developed vs Developing Perspectives at Glasgow

• Developed Countries (EU, UK, US): Pushed for ambitious mitigation (net-zero targets), market mechanisms (Article 6), and private finance mobilization. Emphasis on technological solutions and leveraging private capital (Green Finance).
• Developing Countries (India, China, African bloc): Stressed adaptation, climate justice, historical responsibility, and greater public finance and technology transfer. India emphasised equity per capita emissions and right to development making Glasgow’s final text reflect compromises (coal language softened to “phase down” of unabated coal).
• Trust Deficit: Developing countries argued that developed nations’ net-zero rhetoric lacked near-term action and fulfilment of finance pledges. They sought predictable concessional finance, capacity building, and technology transfer under favourable terms.

Implications & Way Forward

• Implementation focus: Outcomes require clear finance delivery, scaling adaptation funding, and operationalising loss & damage mechanisms.
• Coalition building: Blocs (G77+China, AOSIS, EU) influence outcomes; India’s role as voice of Global South remains pivotal.
• Domestic alignment: Nations must translate COP commitments into credible domestic policies (e.g., India’s National Hydrogen Mission, ambitious renewable targets).

Example: The state’s Haryana Solar Policy (2021) and State Action Plan on Climate Change illustrate domestic implementation of mitigation and adaptation priorities showing subnational significance in delivering COP commitments.

Glasgow revealed progress and gaps: while global consensus on net-zero and frameworks like Article 6 advanced, unresolved finance, equity, and loss & damage issues underscore that climate diplomacy must now shift from promises to predictable finance, clear rules, and tangible implementation.