Context

• COP26 provides a forum for deliberating about Climate adaptation but such global meetings must also account for the needs of developing Nations. A narrow climate agenda will only perpetuate division between postindustrial and developing Countries.

About the Debate

• At their core, climate negotiations continue to be shaped by equity concerns between postindustrial countries in the Global North and emerging economies in the Global South.
• The debate is largely over which countries have contributed most to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and how the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change should be shared.
• How effectively the principle of equity will be embodied in global efforts to combat climate change will help determine the scope and ambition of these efforts.

Why there is North South divide on climate negotiation? 

• Historical Responsibility: The South emphasizes the North's greater historical contribution to emissions.
• Equity & Fairness: The South demands differentiated responsibilities based on capability and development needs.Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) This UNFCCC principle remains a core, contested pillar. 

Critical Areas of Friction between North And South

• Differing Vulnerabilities: Small Island States (AOSIS), Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and major emerging economies (like India, China, Brazil) have distinct priorities and levels of vulnerability.
• Differing Capacities: Economic strength and technical capacity vary greatly among developing nations. 
• Mitigation Ambition & Burden-Sharing: Conflict over the pace and scale of emissions cuts, and who should bear the cost. The North pushes for all to peak ASAP; the South emphasizes its development space and historical responsibility.
• Climate Finance: The South demands vastly more finance than currently committed/delivered.
• Adaptation vs. Mitigation: The South prioritizes adaptation finance (often neglected by the North).
• Transparency & Predictability: Concerns about unclear accounting and unmet $100 billion/year pledge.
• Loss and Damage (L&D): The South seeks dedicated funding and mechanisms to address irreversible climate impacts, which the North largely resists due to liability concerns.
• Need for Cooperation: Cooperation does happen on technical issues (e.g., reporting rules, carbon markets under Article 6).
• The Adaptation Finance Gap: A particularly stark divide exists here. The South views sufficient adaptation finance as an equity obligation, while the North often treats it more as aid or technical assistance, leading to chronic underfunding.

Need for Addressing Climate Finance with Urgency & Equity

• Deliver & Scale Up: Developed countries must credibly meet and exceed the $100 billion/year pledge and set a much higher post-2025 finance goal reflecting actual needs (trillions).
• Prioritize Adaptation & Loss & Damage: Radically increase the proportion of finance for adaptation (currently ~25%) and establish a dedicated, accessible L&D funding mechanism separate from adaptation and mitigation finance. Focus on grants over loans.
• Modernize the Principle of CBDR-RC (Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities): Move beyond the rigid Annexes of the UNFCCC. Differentiation should reflect current economic realities, emissions levels, technological capacity, and vulnerability, not just 1992 status. Some major emerging economies may take on greater responsibilities with commensurate support. 

Conclusion

• The way forward requires moving beyond rhetoric to concrete action on finance, embracing dynamic equity in burden-sharing and support, and building genuine trust.
• Developed nations must lead by example in cutting emissions and delivering finance, particularly for adaptation and L&D.
• Simultaneously, a modernized understanding of CBDR-RC, recognizing the evolving capabilities and vulnerabilities within the "South," is essential for crafting solutions that are perceived as fair and feasible by all parties.