From this perspective, it is creditable that the UAE — the COP presidency — managed to secure an agreement on a major and fractious issue relating to the loss and damage fund even in the absence of ministers. The last climate conference in Sharm El-Sheikh had set up the fund after much protracted negotiations. But the funding decision remained unresolved. The unusual agility with which the interested parties like the donors and the small islands moved to make a deal early in the talks is spectacular.

Not that the parties are fully satisfied with the result. The decision does not mention the specific quantum, scale or source of the fund. It merely invites all parties including both developed and developing, to contribute to the fund. The deal involves an agreement to locate the fund in the World Bank, which would indirectly allow the developed donor countries to have a greater say in the governance and functioning of the fund. Significantly, the decision has led to announcements made by several donors, with the UAE taking the lead in such announcements to contribute to the fund. The commitments have already swelled to over $745 million, with more to come.

The expected scale of losses and damages to be covered globally ranges anywhere from $120 billion to $200 billion a year. But the significance of the announcements lies in the fact that the UAE has overstepped the technical division of developed and developing countries and made the contribution although it is not expected to do so as per the principle of the UNFCCC. This could make things a little tricky for emerging economies that are strictly not expected to contribute to such funds as per the UNFCCC principles but will be increasingly subjected to such demands from smaller countries that consider themselves more vulnerable.

The issue of defining vulnerability is, therefore, now likely to gather momentum in the climate change circles. The decision calls for support to particularly vulnerable countries, without, however, offering a definition or categorisation of countries. Already, there are suggestions that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change should initiate attribution studies to determine the extent of the impact of aggravating climate change on different regions according to the level and source of rising emissions. This could be used to identify the regions and countries that are both vulnerable to and responsible for climate change. Attribution studies are controversial as the scientific opinion differs as to the predictability of natural phenomena with a large degree of precision and certainty.

Interestingly, the Dubai conference has on its agenda the matter of the global goal on adaptation that seeks to outline a framework of adaptation actions to help vulnerable communities and regions. Such a framework should logically have a method to define vulnerability in a manner that no country is denied support for adaptation and loss and damage because of its size.

Dubai COP is frequently referred to as the COP of the Global Stock Take (GST). The Paris Agreement mandates that the first GST of the progress towards the global goal of climate stabilisation at 2 or 1.5 degree above the pre-industrial level will take place in 2023. By all accounts and estimates, the world is far behind in meeting the goal and the current efforts are thoroughly inadequate. Dubai COP, therefore, gives rise to questions of burden sharing and equity of actions amongst nations. Developing countries, and more particularly the emerging economies, are insistent that GST should result in the burden of higher and more ambitious actions being distributed equitably by their share in cumulative emissions and in the proportion of vulnerability.

As of now, the debate on GST is still fluid with no clarity on how new obligations will be undertaken and implemented by countries. The options on the table include measures like winding down the production and use of fossil fuels in an orderly and just manner, setting a global target for the use of renewable energy, doubling that of energy efficiency etc. On the sidelines of the climate talks, several global coalitions have emerged to promote specific agendas in terms of renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, green hydrogen, emissions from international shipping and aviation etc. The most intractable debates often take place around the issue of coal phase-out or phase-down. Most energy-constrained countries in the Global South continue to argue for expanding the ambit from coal to all fossil fuels and work out a just transition plan in a reasonable timeframe consistent with their net zero goal.

Over 120 countries have committed to the global goal of tripling renewable energy capacity to 11,000 GW and doubling the global average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements to more than 4% by 2030. Many countries like India have still not signed on to such pledges presumably because of a lack of clarity on the baseline year, difficulty in measuring the relative contributions and lack of focus on financing of the targets.

The key to resolving all issues relating to energy transition and climate crisis adaptation or mitigation lies in arranging the required finances. A new and collective quantified goal of mobilising finance running into trillions of dollars has been put forth by several parties but the channels and instruments through which this will be done remain disputed. The discussions are now centred on involving multilateral development banks and finding ways to leverage private sector capital for greener purposes by using multilateral resources. A resolution is not expected but the template is likely to be set in Dubai for future negotiations on global climate finance.

RR Rashmi is distinguished fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and former lead climate negotiator. The views expressed are personal