- Nations at COP31 are divided over whether the $100 billion climate finance target was met, citing early shortfalls and concerns over loan-based funding.
- A new 2035 framework targets $300 billion annually, but developing states urge for more grants and easier access to avoid increasing national debt burdens.
- Nepal’s mountain-focused agenda was excluded from COP31 despite the country facing $2.7 billion in damages from recent catastrophic floods and urgent recovery needs.
- Nepal has been provisionally allocated $21.6 million from the Loss and Damage Fund, contingent on formal proposals to address unavoidable climate-driven disasters.
ANTALYA, Türkiye: A dispute over the delivery of a long-promised $100 billion annual climate finance target has resurfaced at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP31) in Antalya. Developed and developing nations remain sharply divided over whether the commitment has truly been fulfilled.
The core disagreement centres on how the target should be measured and whether financial contributions delivered after the original deadline can count as meeting the pledge.
Originally agreed upon at the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference (COP15), developed nations committed to mobilizing $100 billion annually by 2020 to help developing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate impacts. This commitment was later extended through 2025.
According to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), developed nations provided and mobilized $83.3 billion in 2020 and $89.6 billion in 2021. Funding subsequently surged to $115.9 billion in 2022, $132.8 billion in 2023, and $136.7 billion in 2024. While these figures demonstrate that the target was exceeded starting in 2022, the goal was missed by its initial 2020 deadline. The OECD is scheduled to publish its final assessment covering the period through 2025 in 2027.
At COP31, the European Union, Canada, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the Environmental Integrity Group supported recognizing the target as fulfilled based on the 2022–2024 performance. Conversely, the African Group, the Like-Minded Developing Countries, and the Arab Group strongly opposed this stance, arguing that initial shortfalls in 2020 and 2021 must be accounted for when assessing overall compliance.
Beyond total funding figures, developing nations have raised broader concerns regarding how climate finance is calculated, the proportion provided as grants, and the administrative hurdles involved in accessing funds.
What Counts as Climate Finance?
The OECD counting methodology encompasses direct grants and loans from governments, funding routed through multilateral development banks, export credits, and private investment mobilized through public mechanisms.
Developing countries criticize this broad definition, noting that loan-heavy packages exacerbate national debt burdens. Furthermore, critics argue that reported totals do not accurately reflect the net amount of new, easily accessible funding reaching climate-vulnerable communities.
OECD records indicate that private finance mobilized for developing countries reached $30.5 billion in 2024. However, adaptation finance accounted for only about one-quarter of overall climate finance that year, while support directed specifically to low-income countries dropped to $9.6 billion—down from $11.1 billion in 2022. These disparities have fueled ongoing debates over whether the current system offers adequate support to countries that contribute least to global emissions but bear severe climate impacts.
A New Target, but Questions Remain
The $100 billion target is not the only financial commitment under scrutiny. At COP29 in Baku in 2024, negotiators established a new collective quantified goal (NCQG). Under this framework, developed countries agreed to lead efforts to mobilize at least $300 billion annually for developing nations by 2035. The agreement further calls on global actors to work toward scaling total public and private climate finance to at least $1.3 trillion per year by 2035.
These two figures reflect distinct tiers of ambition: the $300 billion target represents a core obligation led by developed nations, whereas the $1.3 trillion figure represents a broader mobilization goal drawing from diverse global sources.
Nevertheless, developing countries question whether $300 billion will meet their operational needs, urging a higher proportion of public funding—specifically grants and highly concessional loans—rather than debt-inducing instruments. Adaptation funding also remains contentious; although COP30 in Belém called for tripling adaptation finance by 2035, negotiators have yet to settle on a baseline against which that progress will be measured.
Nepal's Mountain Agenda Misses COP31 Agenda List
The financial standoff carries immediate consequences for climate-vulnerable nations like Nepal, where rising temperatures, irregular precipitation, rapid glacier retreat, and extreme weather pose severe risks to local communities and infrastructure.
Nepal and Bhutan actively sought to introduce a dedicated COP31 agenda item titled “1.5°C Warming in Mountains” to focus international attention on high-altitude ecosystems. However, when the official conference agenda was adopted on November 9, the proposal failed to secure a dedicated slot, as did a separate proposal aimed at tripling adaptation finance.
Despite the setback, mountain-specific issues have not been completely sidelined. The COP31 Presidency clarified that these matters can be addressed within existing agenda tracks, with structured technical discussions planned during UN climate meetings in 2027 and 2028. Addressing the opening plenary, Nepal's Foreign Minister, Shishir Khanal, advocated for a dedicated work program on mountain environments and urged the inclusion of mountain-specific indicators within global adaptation and finance frameworks.
Bhotekoshi–Trishuli Floods Highlight Climate Risk Costs
The urgency of Nepal's appeal is reinforced by recent devastating floods along the Bhotekoshi and Trishuli river systems. Disaster striking the Rasuwa, Nuwakot, and Dhading districts on August 26 caused an estimated $1.81 billion in direct physical damage and $883 million in economic losses, bringing total damages to nearly $2.7 billion.
Preliminary government assessments indicate Nepal will require approximately $4.78 billion for long-term recovery, reconstruction, livelihood restoration, and disaster risk reduction—a formidable sum for a nation with limited public revenue.
In response to the disaster, the Board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) provisionally set aside $21.6 million for Nepal during an extraordinary session on October 22. Governed by the fund’s Barbados Implementation Modalities, these funds remain contingent on Nepal submitting a formal project proposal through its designated national focal point. The loss and damage mechanism operates independently of the main $100 billion climate finance framework, focusing specifically on addressing unavoidable climate impacts.
Turning Commitments Into Support
Nepal's immediate focus rests on submitting a viable proposal to unlock the earmarked loss and damage funding so relief reaches affected river valley communities. Concurrently, Nepali negotiators must continue advocating for simplified access rules for nations with limited administrative capacity.
While high-level debates at COP31 determine how past promises and future goals are accounted for on paper, statistics alone will not protect vulnerable regions. For Nepal and similar nations, success depends on whether promised capital arrives predictably, on concessional terms, and through accessible channels when disaster strikes.
